MTW Pocket Mod: Units, Buildings and Unit Stats

Belisario and excetchzebe1, thanks for the name change info! I may be able to actually do some modding now. :bow:

Well I've been working on Innocentius' Swedish Crossbow Peasants for hours and on the campaign map they're fine. In battle they CTD the game straight to the desktop... I haven't changed anything except to set their weapon as AP (I've tried without AP as well) and I have changed their Charge, Melee, Defense, Armour, Honour stats and their movements speeds are those of slav warriors. The base unit size is 100 instead of 60. Apart from that they are regular crossbows. The crash occurs as soon as they try to fire on the enemy. All of their textures files are inplace. I have replicated the crossbows entirely simply copying and renaming files. I've done the item/shield, done the files in the MShelm and the actionspage stuff, I've even done the deadpage coordinates already. At present I'm totally stumped. If I can't find a solution I'll have to delete them and start afresh.
:wall: :furious3: :furious: :bigcry: :bomb2: :hanged:

Hey, you can only try your best Caravel. If you can't get them to work, yes of course it'd be unfortunate, but so be it. You're not Superman, you know. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Hey, you can only try your best Caravel. If you can't get them to work, yes of course it'd be unfortunate, but so be it. You're not Superman, you know. :beam:

---

This is nothing complicated just a new unit, like the Militia Cavalry or the Desert Horse Archers. There is some kind of error or omission somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can find it. :book:

Did you give them ammo in the Unit_Prod file? That can cause CTDs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

Did you give them ammo in the Unit_Prod file? That can cause CTDs.

---

I changed their ammo from 28 to 24, then I changed it back. I ended up basically turning them back into standard crossbows, statistically, and they still wouldn't work. :shame:

Hi Caravel

I've read your problems with the new Swedish crossbowmen peasants and I remember that crossbows are treated like shields. Duke John in his Unit Graphics guide says about this matter:

Note that crossbows (and if you want bows) are treated like shields to create perspective. Technically there is no difference between crossbows and shields, visually you will just see a crossbow instead of a shield.

5.1.4 Textures\Men\NameBIF\NameUnit_S.txt
This file contains an integer corresponding to the shield number:2[/list]In this case the unit will use the shield2; the blue entry as entered under 5.1.2.
In some cases, as with Pavise Crossbowmen, the unit uses two 'shields'. You should then make the following entry:2,3[/list]In which 3 corresponds with the crossbow graphic. Note that you should also make the positioning coordinates for the crossbow

The link for the guide is: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=31893

Some notes about Turkish units, chapter 2:

Janissaries: In MTW we can deploy three units of janissaries: janissary infantry, janissary archers, and janissary heavy infantry.

Janissary infantry’s info pic is based on a plate from an Osprey book – The Janissaries by David Nicolle, Elite Series 58 – that represented a “Nefer Janissary soldier” from the late 14th century, the early days of the Janissaries. The bif animation matches well with the info pic. I think these soldiers would be the first janissaries available to the Ottomans and you could rename them as “Nefer Janissaries” (nefer means soldier).

Janissary Heavy Infantry’s info pic is based on a plate from the same Osprey book that represented a “Zirhli Nefer” janissary from the 16th century and the author’s comment about the figure says some interesting words: “Janissaries who continued to wear full armour were simply known as Zirhli Nefer or “armoured soldiers”. They were used as assault troops (…). This man has a highly decorated gilded helmet with a Janissary plume-holder on the front, a flexible neck-guard and a mail-and-plate “zirh gömlek” cuirass (…). His shield is a form adopted from the Ottoman’s eastern European foes, while the “tirpan” staff-weapon suggests Italian influence”. I think the term Zirhli Nefer was a common expression and not only for the armoured janissaries so you could rename the JHI as “Zirhli Nefer Janissaries”.

Janissary Archers have an authentic classic janissary look when we deploy them on MTW battlefields. I refer to their Bif animation which includes the typical white cap of the janissaries. However their info pic doesn’t do them justice; from my point of view this represents a tribal or irregular Turkish archer. Concerning the Janissary Archers bif, this corresponds with the 15th century Janissary equipment similar to the equipment used by the famous Janissary musketeers. In the Osprey book Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774 the author comments an illustration of a 15th century Janissary: “The government-issued equipment of the Janissary infantry was simple but of good quality, as was their heavy woollen clothing. The characteristic woollen cap would later grow larger, while shield and bow would soon both be abandoned in favour of a musket”. I think you could give them the longbow or create a new type of bow/projectile which represents the eastern composite bow; you can bear in mind these words from the Osprey book Nicopolis 1396: “The Ottoman composite bow, though having greater range, accuracy and rate of shooting than the Western European longbow, shot notably lighter arrows”.

Ottoman Infantry: This unit would be the bulk of Ottoman non-elite infantry, however its info pic leaves me perplex: it’s based on a plate from the Osprey book Armies of the Ottoman Turks 1300-1774 which represents a superbly equipped Ottoman infantryman of the early 15th century. The author’s comment about the figure says: “This man is clearly one of the Sultan’s elite. He wears full infantry armour of mail-and-splints, probably designed for siege-warfare. Even his engraved iron shield could resist primitive firearms. His sword is slung from his shoulder, a style only used by foot soldiers”. A possible solution for this unit could be rename it as “Zirhli Nefer” which means “armoured soldier” or as “Baltaci” which means “halberdier or man who wielded a battle-axe”.

Thanks Belisario, I had thought the crossbow might be a shield in frames but wasn't sure. I did notice it in the files in the MShelm directory though.

The Skutatoi are finished and working, with one hitch. The unit icon on the battle map. I can't get a program (tried psp and ultimate paint) to save .lbm files small enough so as not to crash the battle map, or at least I think that's the problem. They're currently using a copy of the Byzantine Infantry unit icon, which doesn't cause a crash. The black spots need cleaning off the bifs as well, but apart from that the .bifs have come out ok... ok by my standards anyway.

The Swedish Crossbows (name required) are also finished and working! The problem was that I had inadvertently given them an armour value of 0....... :dunce:

Once I get these sorted I'll get onto some Byzantine, Janissary and Ottoman renaming. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The Swedish Crossbows (name required) are also finished and working! The problem was that I had inadvertently given them an armour value of 0....... :dunce:

Once I get these sorted I'll get onto some Byzantine, Janissary and Ottoman renaming. :thumbsup:

---

Huzzah! ~:cheers:

Just out of curiosity (and NOT to nag - I'm in no hurry ~:)), do you have any idea when the 0.6 version will be ready for download? I'm just wondering if I'll have at least another week or two to play some more of my Fatamid campaign (on the 0.5 version)....

We've a way to go yet. Before this next release I hope to be able to turn out working lbm files for the battle map uniticons. If I can't do that, then the release will have to be delayed until I can.

The Skutatoi are basically based on Chivalric Sergeants stats at present, but I would prefer to move away from that set formula, giving them different strengths and weaknesses to the former. Their info pic is the same as byzantine infantry except they are holding a spear instead of a sword. The same goes for their review panel icon. In battle they also look the same as Byzantine Infantry except that they carry a spear, or one could say that they look identical to Saracen Infantry except with the Byzantine Infantry shield.

I have some more questions/proposals/suggestions for the learned amongst us to peruse:

1) Were Kataphrakoi/Klibanophoroi actually the bodyguard units for Byzantine Royalty? If so which one (see below first).

2) With respect to the Pronoiai Allagion, I understand the pronoiars but why the "Allagion" bit? Surely that just means "unit", "formation" or "squadron" or whatever. I'm thinking that these should be renamed as "Pronoiai Kataphraktoi", but in all honesty the "Pronoiai" is redundant. These "knights" were already in existence before the gradual introduction and extension of the Pronoia system, they weren't created by it. Kataphraktoi generally meant "heavy cavalry" in the Medieval Byzantine Empire and was not the "cataphract" - as in all over armoured man and horse - synonymous with earlier times. I think "Kataphraktoi" would be a better name.

3) The Kataphraktoi in the game should definitely be Klibanophoroi, the all over armoured man and horse. There should probably be two type of Klibanophoroi, those armed with bows ("Klibanophoroi Toxotai"?) and those without. Historically both types would have been used probably within the same unit. It would have varied alot. The problem with MTW is that if we create only one type of Klibanophoroi with a bow, the AI will use it primarily as a horse archer and not unleash it's full potential.

4) Byzantine Cavalry would be the bow armed version of Kataphraktoi, my greek is not good, so perhaps someone can come up with a name for these "Kataphraktoi Horse Archers" ("Kataphraktoi Toxotai"?).

5) For Byzantine Lancers, perhaps "Trapezitoi" would be a good name? I have seen alot of references to this on the net, albeit mostly at wargaming minatures sites. I could do with finding some more reliable information. It appears that they may have been javelin armed cavalry similar to Jinetes.

6) I also think that the Psiloi need to be introduced, that is the light infantry. These would have to be based on the Trebizone Archers (currently the Toxotai hat look similalar to Ottoman Infanry/Bulgarians Brigands in battle but have the Treb Archers stats). To do this I would replicate the Toxotai but remove the shields and slightly nerf their stats. As a compromise they would of course get the composite bow once it's up and running. The Psiloi would then take over from the old Toxotai, possibly with slighly improved stats (no decisions on stats yet).

7) The Skutatoi would replace the old byzantine infantry. Their stats would be slightly adjusted to allow them to fare better vs sword infantry.

-Edit: Note to self: Check the Swedish Peasants' charge animation is working correctly. I have used the charge script from militia sergeants in order that their axes be visible when charging, but I didn't pay any attention to whether it was working or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

1) Were Kataphrakoi/Klibanophoroi actually the bodyguard units for Byzantine Royalty? If so which one (see below first).

---

I've had a passive interest in that very question for a while now, but I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I know that the Emperor sometimes rode into battle with an elite regiment of heavy cavalry call the Immortals (they were generally stationed in Constantinople), but it doesn't specify whether or not they were actually Kats of some type. My gut feeling tells me they were, but I have no proof of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

2) With respect to the Pronoiai Allagion, I understand the pronoiars but why the "Allagion" bit? Surely that just means "unit", "formation" or "squadron" or whatever. I'm thinking that these should be renamed as "Pronoiai Kataphraktoi", but in all honesty the "Pronoiai" is redundant. These "knights" were already in existence before the gradual introduction and extension of the Pronoia system, they weren't created by it. Kataphraktoi generally meant "heavy cavalry" in the Medieval Byzantine Empire and was not the "cataphract" - as in all over armoured man and horse - synonymous with earlier times. I think "Kataphraktoi" would be a better name.

---

I'm not so sure about that, actually. Granting that I've not read up on all things Byzantine (or even a majority of it, I'm sure!), pretty much every source of material on the Byz I *have* come across has mentioned Kataphractoi/Klibanophoroi and Pronoia as being different things. Katanks were generally recruited from the middles classes of Imperial society, whereas the PA generally seem to have been restricted to the upper nobility and higher-ranking military officers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

3) The Kataphraktoi in the game should definitely be Klibanophoroi, the all over armoured man and horse. There should probably be two type of Klibanophoroi, those armed with bows ("Klibanophoroi Toxotai"?) and those without. Historically both types would have been used probably within the same unit. It would have varied alot. The problem with MTW is that if we create only one type of Klibanophoroi with a bow, the AI will use it primarily as a horse archer and not unleash it's full potential.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

4) Byzantine Cavalry would be the bow armed version of Kataphraktoi, my greek is not good, so perhaps someone can come up with a name for these "Kataphraktoi Horse Archers" ("Kataphraktoi Toxotai"?).

---

Yeah, I'm not sure what to tell you there. The only thing I can think of would be to take Byzantine Cavalry and rename them ("Prokursatores", maybe?). Possibly reduce their training costs and/or build requirements as well? That would be counter-intuitive, though, seeing as they should probably be roughly equal to Kataphractoi/Klibanaophoroi. Hmm, need to think on that one more.... :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

5) For Byzantine Lancers, perhaps "Trapezitoi" would be a good name? I have seen alot of references to this on the net, albeit mostly at wargaming minatures sites. I could do with finding some more reliable information. It appears that they may have been javelin armed cavalry similar to Jinetes.

---

It's as good a name as any. I wasn't able to find anything on them either, so I'd just say go for it. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

6) I also think that the Psiloi need to be introduced, that is the light infantry. These would have to be based on the Trebizone Archers (currently the Toxotai hat look similalar to Ottoman Infanry/Bulgarians Brigands in battle but have the Treb Archers stats). To do this I would replicate the Toxotai but remove the shields and slightly nerf their stats. As a compromise they would of course get the composite bow once it's up and running. The Psiloi would then take over from the old Toxotai, possibly with slighly improved stats (no decisions on stats yet).

---

Sounds good to me. If they're going to have composite bows, I think that'll be more than a fair trade for reducing their melee abilities (I assume that what you're referring to, anyway). ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

7) The Skutatoi would replace the old byzantine infantry. Their stats would be slightly adjusted to allow them to fare better vs sword infantry.

---

Cool. I was going to mention that, but you're obviuosly already way ahead of me. :2thumbsup: If I may make another suggestion, I would recommend looking at upping their morale and discipline stats as well. Not necessarily by a lot, but the Byzantines' heavy infantry was known for their discipline, especially during the Comneni dynasty.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caravel

With respect to the Pronoiai Allagion, I understand the pronoiars but why the "Allagion" bit? Surely that just means "unit", "formation" or "squadron" or whatever. I'm thinking that these should be renamed as "Pronoiai Kataphraktoi", but in all honesty the "Pronoiai" is redundant. These "knights" were already in existence before the gradual introduction and extension of the Pronoia system, they weren't created by it. Kataphraktoi generally meant "heavy cavalry" in the Medieval Byzantine Empire and was not the "cataphract" - as in all over armoured man and horse - synonymous with earlier times. I think "Kataphraktoi" would be a better name.

---

If you want to disengage this type of cavalry from the faudal system of land grants that was introduced that is a fair renaming. If not the pronoiai can still stay in. Allagoion indeed is a term meaning "company - unit". Pronoia (singular) - Pronoiai (plural) means providence/provision and refers to the land grant given to nobles.

The system was introduced as a measure of getting the nobilities allegiance but in time created bigger problems as they've grown too powerful to control. Fragmentation and constant intrigue was the main two reasons of Byzantine collapse - they were simply too busy dividing spoils among them to fight off external enemies.

Clibanophoroi can come in two: something like (basic) Clibanophoroi (with lances or maces) and Clibanophoroi or Kataphaktoi toxotai as you suggest.

The rest sounds fair enough and quite good.

Will you give Byzantium any kind of lighter horse archer?

*EDIT*
Just thought now; weren't "Trapezitoi" thematic troops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I've had a passive interest in that very question for a while now, but I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I know that the Emperor sometimes rode into battle with an elite regiment of heavy cavalry call the Immortals (they were generally stationed in Constantinople), but it doesn't specify whether or not they were actually Kats of some type. My gut feeling tells me they were, but I have no proof of that.

---

The Athanatoi (The Immortals) are too early and belong to a previous dynasty from the 10th century IIRC. They were still a type of kataphraktoi/klibanophoroi though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

I'm not so sure about that, actually. Granting that I've not read up on all things Byzantine (or even a majority of it, I'm sure!), pretty much every source of material on the Byz I *have* come across has mentioned Kataphractoi/Klibanophoroi and Pronoia as being different things. Katanks were generally recruited from the middles classes of Imperial society, whereas the PA generally seem to have been restricted to the upper nobility and higher-ranking military officers.

---

The Pronoia was a land grant system, not a type of cavalry AFAIK, this is why I have looked at disassociation of the heavy cavalry away from the Pronoia name. These cavalry are actually Kataphraktoi, as all heavy Byzantine cavalry were referred to as Kataphraktoi. In the medieval byzantine empire the name appears to have referred to the man only, and not the man and the horse. The very heavy cavalry (the katapraktoi in the game) were referred to as Klibanophoroi, though this term appeared to have fallen out of use and is ignored by many writers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Yeah, I'm not sure what to tell you there. The only thing I can think of would be to take Byzantine Cavalry and rename them ("Prokursatores", maybe?). Possibly reduce their training costs and/or build requirements as well? That would be counter-intuitive, though, seeing as they should probably be roughly equal to Kataphractoi/Klibanaophoroi. Hmm, need to think on that one more.... :book:

---

I would say they are not really light enough to be considered as Prokursatores, and I'm unsure if that term was still in use during the timeframe of the game (as I'm unsure if klibanophoroi was still in use).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Sounds good to me. If they're going to have composite bows, I think that'll be more than a fair trade for reducing their melee abilities (I assume that what you're referring to, anyway). ~:cheers:

---

I'm looking to introduce a composite bow once I get some idea of the stats required. I'm thinking of longbow type range and power though with less armour piercing ability due to the lower weight of the arrow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Cool. I was going to mention that, but you're obviuosly already way ahead of me. :2thumbsup: If I may make another suggestion, I would recommend looking at upping their morale and discipline stats as well. Not necessarily by a lot, but the Byzantines' heavy infantry was known for their discipline, especially during the Comneni dynasty.

---

The Scutatoi would have carried the curved sword you can see in the Byzantine Infantry pic, and a long spear, which would have been the primary weapon. I'm sure that using Belisario's method I can perhaps get them to fight with both, but it wouldn't look right as they'd do all of their fighting with the swords and only charge/walk/run/stand with the spear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excetchzebe1

If you want to disengage this type of cavalry from the faudal system of land grants that was introduced that is a fair renaming. If not the pronoiai can still stay in. Allagoion indeed is a term meaning "company - unit". Pronoia (singular) - Pronoiai (plural) means providence/provision and refers to the land grant given to nobles.

---

The issue is that the nobles that were part of the Pronoiai system were equipped as Kataphraktoi (heavy cavalry) soldiers and not somehow distinct from kataphraktoi. To me it would be like calling Feudal Knights "Feudal Units", wheras they would be better called simply "Knights".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excetchzebe1

Clibanophoroi can come in two: something like (basic) Clibanophoroi (with lances or maces) and Clibanophoroi or Kataphaktoi toxotai as you suggest.

---

I will probably have to create Klibanophoroi (old Kataphraktoi), Klibanophoroi Toxotai (old Kataphraktoi with added bows and reduced charge), Kataphraktoi (PA) and Kataphraktoi Toxotai (Byzantine Cavalry with stats brought up to PA level with less charge).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excetchzebe1

The rest sounds fair enough and quite good.

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excetchzebe1

Will you give Byzantium any kind of lighter horse archer?

---

I'm looking into that. They may be the Prokursatores that Martok mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excetchzebe1

*EDIT*
Just thought now; weren't "Trapezitoi" thematic troops?

---

:shrug:

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The Scutatoi would have carried the curved sword you can see in the Byzantine Infantry pic, and a long spear, which would have been the primary weapon. I'm sure that using Belisario's method I can perhaps get them to fight with both, but it wouldn't look right as they'd do all of their fighting with the swords and only charge/walk/run/stand with the spear.

---

You could have them as a unit that can fight with spears and then "dismount" to have swords.

About the Byzantines, and the Heavy Spear issue: AKA: My case for leaving Byz Infantry as 100 men units:

- In the Alexiad the battle descriptions seem to indicate that the byzantine military was more sword than spear oriented (Historical reasons)

- In vanilla TW, I think the issue is having a faction that instead of regular sergeants (Like catholic ones) gets a "man-at-arms" sergeant unit that is superb as man-at-arms but lacks punch when dealing with cavalry. In vanilla, this is supplemented with mercenary corps, althrough this is disabled in the pocket mod.

- My case: remove armored spearmen, put Byzantine infantry back at 100 men units so they act as "sword sergeants", and force the byzantines to use general spearmen as anticavalry defense. It presents quite a dillema, and makes the faction general land strategy quite different, based on mass men at arms and a few spearmen as support (you will not get pike shoves, as your infantry will cut through enemy spearmen like butter, but likewise, unless you´re in a hill, not bringing around one or two regular spear units to bear the blunt of cavalry charges will decimate your forces.)



About the compound bow: quite the contrary: the lower weight of the arrow would diminish the distance, not the armor piercing capabilities, methinks. Think: Crossbows.

The "special" bows get their added power from the elastic power drawn from the frame. Longbows had a huge arch and thus greater range and armor piercing capabilities (as well as long flying arrows, I guess). Compound bows have a complex arch, and are usually made of materials of greater tension, like bone, so for their size they have a bigger punch, as well. Crossbows use metal , and thus are able to hurl projectiles at great speeds.

(This reminds me of a class of physics from first year of college, when, while studying arches and tension, the teacher for some reason started speaking about the english longbowmen, and how they had found out that arrows launched from a bow with a greater arch could pierce platemail. "which they found... well, interesting, for their armies")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

You could have them as a unit that can fight with spears and then "dismount" to have swords.

---

I've though about that one, but would prefer not to go down that route. It seems wrong to have the unit irreversibly lose their spears before the battle starts... :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

About the Byzantines, and the Heavy Spear issue: AKA: My case for leaving Byz Infantry as 100 men units:

- In the Alexiad the battle descriptions seem to indicate that the byzantine military was more sword than spear oriented (Historical reasons)

---

I've never read anything to that effect. The sword is generally a much more romantic, christian and chivalrous weapon, and features a lot in historical texts because running the enemy through with a sword sounds much more heroic than pranging his horse with a spear then jabbing the rider through the chest once he's fallen off. The spear was much more commonly used in open warfare in medieval western and central europe also. I have seen numerous images of byzantine spearheads and references to the "Kontarioi" (spearmen) or "Skutatoi" (shieldmen) infantry that were equipped with them. The byzantine units were combined arms units by all accounts, with archers in the center of the formation. The heavy infantry in the formation formed the outer ranks and were armed with kontarion (heavy spear) and paramerion (scimitar type sword) or spathion (long sword). The spear was the primary weapon of the Skutatoi with the sword stowed as a back up weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

- In vanilla TW, I think the issue is having a faction that instead of regular sergeants (Like catholic ones) gets a "man-at-arms" sergeant unit that is superb as man-at-arms but lacks punch when dealing with cavalry. In vanilla,

---

This is the CA's game "balancing" tricks, and not historical accuracy at work. Despite these attempts at balancing, the Byzantine are still highly overpowered and imbalanced due, quite simply, to their 8 and 9 star royalty and nothing much else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

this is supplemented with mercenary corps, althrough this is disabled in the pocket mod.

---

Mercenaries are disabled for the simple fact that they are an exploit and the AI cannot use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

- My case: remove armored spearmen, put Byzantine infantry back at 100 men units so they act as "sword sergeants", and force the byzantines to use general spearmen as anticavalry defense. It presents quite a dillema, and makes the faction general land strategy quite different, based on mass men at arms and a few spearmen as support (you will not get pike shoves, as your infantry will cut through enemy spearmen like butter, but likewise, unless you´re in a hill, not bringing around one or two regular spear units to bear the blunt of cavalry charges will decimate your forces.)

---

There are no "Sword Sergeants". The Byzantine infantry do not have any cavalry defence bonus and giving this to the sword wielders would be wrong IMHO. The skutatoi, the historical spear armed byantine infantry, need to to replace the current byzantine swordsmen for this reason. Restoring everything back to the vanilla setup, would defeat the object of this mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

About the compound bow: quite the contrary: the lower weight of the arrow would diminish the distance, not the armor piercing capabilities, methinks. Think: Crossbows.

---

I'm not sure about that. Crossbows are unflighted bolts that are almost always fired on a pretty flat trajectory. There is no real comparison. As to whether less weight would decrease range, that seems to against the laws of physics somehow?? Surely with such projectiles it was all about balance?

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

We've a way to go yet. Before this next release I hope to be able to turn out working lbm files for the battle map uniticons. If I can't do that, then the release will have to be delayed until I can.

---

I’m able to save working lbm files with Ultimate Paint. But in my lbm files the faction colours (the green/pink colours that in the game are replaced for the colours of each faction) don’t work, though this little - and irritating – problem is irrelevant for the functionality of the lbm file. Make sure that you save the file as a lbm (unitname.LBM) of 256 colours, otherwise UP will save the image as an iff file. You can also create a working lbm with the Dragon Mtw Editor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

2) With respect to the Pronoiai Allagion, I understand the pronoiars but why the "Allagion" bit? Surely that just means "unit", "formation" or "squadron" or whatever. I'm thinking that these should be renamed as "Pronoiai Kataphraktoi", but in all honesty the "Pronoiai" is redundant. These "knights" were already in existence before the gradual introduction and extension of the Pronoia system, they weren't created by it. Kataphraktoi generally meant "heavy cavalry" in the Medieval Byzantine Empire and was not the "cataphract" - as in all over armoured man and horse - synonymous with earlier times. I think "Kataphraktoi" would be a better name.

---

Many Byzantine soldiers of the post-Manzikert era were maintained by grants of land called “pronoiai” (literally “providences” or “solicitudes”). The pronoia-holder, typically a native heavy cavalryman (though as early as Manuel I’s reign “pronoiai” were being granted to foreigners), was properly called a pronoiar (Greek sing. “pronoiarios” / pl. “pronoiarioi”), but was more commonly known simply as a “stratiotes” (literally “soldier”; pl. “stratiotai”). Latin mercenaries and their descendants also received pronoia fiefs in return for their services; these Latin pronoiars were known as “kavallarios” (from the Latin “caballarius; pl. “kavallarioi”). “Kavallarioi” were socially the equivalent of native pronoia-soldiers (“Stratiotai”) and became the best equipped soldiers of the 13th Byzantine cavalry. I think the Byzantine Lancers could be renamed as “Stratiotai” or “Pronoiarioi Stratiotai” and the Pronoiai Allagion as “Kavallarioi” or “Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi”.

I’ve found this interesting post in another forum:

Latinikon: Frankish heavy cavalry (initially Norman and German mercenaries) filled the void left by the decline of native heavy cavalry starting in the mid 11th century. By the 1060’s they represented the largest contingent of heavy cavalry in the Byzantine army with approximately 3,000 serving by 1071. After the First Crusade, they were primarily recruited from the various Crusader States. Their numbers also included at times soldiers provided from allied kingdoms such as the 500 Flemish knights sent as a gift to Alexios Komnenos in 1092. By 1100 the old tagmatic cavalry units had been either destroyed or disbanded and except for the nobles and retainers of the extended Komnenian family (supported through pronoia), the Latin’s were the Byzantine’s sole heavy cavalry force during the Komnenian period. After the Fourth Crusade, Latin heavy cavalrymen were recruited from the impoverished Latin Kingdom of Constantinople and from Frankish Greece. Frankish knights along with Cuman small holding soldiers were the backbone of the Nicean army with the Latin’s distinguishing themselves at the battle of Antioch in 1211. After the Nicean's captured Constantinople in 1261, Latin pronoiars known as Kavallarioi were likely the best equipped soldiers in Byzantine employ. Kavallarioi, who first appear in Nicean Smyrna in the 1220’s, were socially the equivalent of native pronoia soldiers (Stratiotai) but wore heavier armour and rode large war horses in contrast to the Stratiotai who preferred smaller (and faster) Turkish or Hungarian mounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

7) The Skutatoi would replace the old byzantine infantry. Their stats would be slightly adjusted to allow them to fare better vs sword infantry.

---

There are a confusing number of names to refer the Byzantine Infantry. I think “Skoutatoi” is a valid term for the Byzantine infantrymen; its etymology derives from the term “Skouta”, a large infantry shield. Alternative names are “Kontaratoi” (spearmen), “Spatharioi” (swordsmen), “Peltastoi” (light or medium infantryman), etc. If you want maintain the old Byzantine Infantry you could adopt other solutions, for instance renaming these units as Skutatoi Swordsmen and Skutatoi Spearmen. This is a large matter of debate.

These words from the ChivalricTW forum posted by a Greek speaker are interesting:

Zenith Darksea

I posted this at stratcommandcenter.com, but I thought I'd post it here as well for good measure.

They're absolutely fantastic, but I see that you still can't get the Greek right. Please, for the love of a twisted pedant like myself, try and make sure that the Greek names of Byzantine units actually make sense in Greek. For example:

Tagmata Klibanophoron should be Klibanophoron Tagma
Trapezitae should be Trapezitai
Themata Spatharioi should be Thematikoi Spatharioi or Thematon Spatharioi
Dynatoi Oiketai should be Dynastou Oiketai (I assume you're attempting to say 'Emperor's Retainers'?)
Themata Kontaratoi should be Thematikoi Kontaratoi or Thematon Kontaratoi
Varrangoi Tagmata should be Varangion Tagma
Latinikon Mercenaries were much better as Latinikoi, or would also be good as Latinikoi Misthophoroi
Skythikon Mercenaries likewise would be better as Skythikoi or Skythikoi Misthophoroi

These Greek corrections of mine, even if I do say so myself, are much more elegant, idiomatic, and correct.

Now, as for the Exkoubitores, you may well refer to them as a 'Tagma' (remember, it is one Tagma and two Tagmata) but a 'Skoutatos' could be any infantryman practically, as by this point in history the Skouta/Skouton referred generally to large infantry shields. Historically the word 'Skoutatos' was much more likely to refer to an ordinary infantryman than anyone else. So you might just leave the name at 'Exkoubitores'.

The exact translation of Themata Taxeis is something like 'Provinces [and] Units'. In Greek, that just doesn't make any sense. The Pronoiarioi or Pronoiarion Allagion would be a good unit for the late period (CA's original Pronoia Allagion was totally ungrammatical - it translates as 'Foresight [and] Battalion').

Incidentally, I added the 'and' in square brackets because in Greek, when you have two nominatives next to each other that are inapposite, they take on a predicative role rather than attributive. In other words, they come out with the sense of 'a something and a something else' rather than 'a something something'. It's hard to explain to non-linguists!

Quote:

---

As to whether less weight would decrease range, that seems to against the laws of physics somehow??

---

Try to throw a long distance a bundle of cloth, little grasshopper :p

It does not go against the laws of physics. Objects without weight do not travel far

So, questions/observations (again):

1) Are Klibanophoroi (I mean the type of Kataphraktoi in the game) simply too eary to be in the game?

2) I'm happy with "Stratiotai" / "Pronoiarioi Stratiotai" and "Kavallarioi" / "Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi" based on what you've mentioned about the post manzikert era, which is actually quite an important point that I hadn't paid enough attention to.

3) Regarding the Skutatoi, I have read that the Kontaratoi was the newer term, so it may be best to stick with that? The Byzantine Infantry could be preserved, or used as a dismount unit as Rythmic suggested (that way fans of the old infantry could field them in battle, but the AI would never use them). They [the old paramerion equipped Byzantine Infantry] would be renamed as Skutatoi I suppose?

4) With regards to Byzantine Cavalry, would they also be a Pronoiarioi unit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

So, questions/observations (again):

1) Are Klibanophoroi (I mean the type of Kataphraktoi in the game) simply too eary to be in the game?

---

The question about Kataphraktoi/Klibanophoroi is often a large matter of debate. In the post-Manzikert era the main source of heavy cavalry for Byzantium was the pronoia system and the mercenaries. Cavalrymen with horse armour like the soldier in the Kataphraktoi info pic were not many. However the retainers of the Byzantine rulers or generals and some units of the imperial guard perhaps were equipped in such way. You could maintain the Kataphraktoi as a 20 man BG unit or even create a BG unit called Dynatoi Oiketai (Magnates' retainers) and maintain the 40 man Kataphrakoi unit (but very expensives, only available in the Early era and two years to train).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

3) Regarding the Skutatoi, I have read that the Kontaratoi was the newer term, so it may be best to stick with that? The Byzantine Infantry could be preserved, or used as a dismount unit as Rythmic suggested (that way fans of the old infantry could field them in battle, but the AI would never use them). They [the old paramerion equipped Byzantine Infantry] would be renamed as Skutatoi I suppose?

---

Kontaratoi --- Byzantine Spearmen
Skutatoi --- Byzantine Infantry

I agree with you, for our purpose it's a good solution (remember that we don't go to write the definitive guide about the Byzantine army).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

4) With regards to Byzantine Cavalry, would they also be a Pronoiarioi unit?

---

I think this unit could be preserve to represent the huge amount of Pecheneg, Cuman, Alan, Turk mercenaries in Byzantine service during the period covered by MTW. There are several terms for these soldiers who mostly fought as light horse-archers: Skythikoi for Pechenegs and Cumans, Tourkopouloi for christianised Turks, Vardariotai for an elite guard unit formed by Turks or Hungarians settled in the Vardar valley, Alanoi or Massagetoi for Alans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

The question about Kataphraktoi/Klibanophoroi is often a large matter of debate. In the post-Manzikert era the main source of heavy cavalry for Byzantium was the pronoia system and the mercenaries. Cavalrymen with horse armour like the soldier in the Kataphraktoi info pic were not many. However the retainers of the Byzantine rulers or generals and some units of the imperial guard perhaps were equipped in such way. You could maintain the Kataphraktoi as a 20 man BG unit or even create a BG unit called Dynatoi Oiketai (Magnates' retainers) and maintain the 40 man Kataphrakoi unit (but very expensives, only available in the Early era and two years to train).

---

Well that's basically how Kataphraktoi are now, a 20 man scalable unit. So I suppose, keep the name, or rename them as Dynatoi Oiketai, and leave them as they are, but increase the dependencies and costs for raising new ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I think this unit could be preserve to represent the huge amount of Pecheneg, Cuman, Alan, Turk mercenaries in Byzantine service during the period covered by MTW. There are several terms for these soldiers who mostly fought as light horse-archers: Skythikoi for Pechenegs and Cumans, Tourkopouloi for christianised Turks, Vardariotai for an elite guard unit formed by Turks or Hungarians settled in the Vardar valley, Alanoi or Massagetoi for Alans.

---

Well the Steppe Horse Archers I've introduced will probably fill that role as would Alan Mercenary Cavalry. I was thinking of placing the Byzantine Cavalry on a par with the Pronoiarioi Stratiotai, but with bows and a reduced charge? If I were to do so, what sort of naming would we be looking at?

(I was going to mention that, according to the highly unreliable wikipedia, Byzantine Kataphractoi carried both bow and spear. It also notes that the army was chiefly composed of bowmen and cavalry -and cavalry archers-, with heavy infantry playing the role of opening gaps for cavalry)

Perhaps a full rehasal of the byzantine units&building order is in order?


BTW: in regard to the earlier topic of "Royal bodyguards trainable only in your capital", I was going to suggest limiting the training of these to capitals. AKA: You can only train Royal Knights in Castile, Aragon, Ile de France, London, and whatnot, Kataphractoi in Constantinople, Siphanis in Rum, and Ghulams in Cordoba, Cairo and Rum.

It would also give a degree of realism to the game, with the royal family generals and/or monarch having to travel back to the capital from time to time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

(I was going to mention that, according to the highly unreliable wikipedia, Byzantine Kataphractoi carried both bow and spear. It also notes that the army was chiefly composed of bowmen and cavalry -and cavalry archers-, with heavy infantry playing the role of opening gaps for cavalry)

---

There are far too many conflicting sources without bringing wikipedia into it (:laugh4:), but that isn't far off what I've read elsewhere. The Skutatoi and Kontaratoi apparently formed a kind of "base" for the cavalry and nothing more. The cavalry being the mainstay of the force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Perhaps a full rehasal of the byzantine units&building order is in order?

---

I think so, but I must admit I'm beginning to lose patience with them [the byz]. Everytime I think something is clear, another hitch turns up. Their history, especially militarily seems to be made up mainly of speculation and opinion. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

BTW: in regard to the earlier topic of "Royal bodyguards trainable only in your capital", I was going to suggest limiting the training of these to capitals. AKA: You can only train Royal Knights in Castile, Aragon, Ile de France, London, and whatnot, Kataphractoi in Constantinople, Siphanis in Rum, and Ghulams in Cordoba, Cairo and Rum.

It would also give a degree of realism to the game, with the royal family generals and/or monarch having to travel back to the capital from time to time

---

Good in theory but possibly not in practice. I've so far modded the Royal Palace as a unique building. This basically means that the bodyguard units for the muslims and catholics can only be produced in one province. Capitals also moved around during that period, and because the game does not follow history exactly your capital may move also. This would leave you unable to train the bodyguard units.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Caravel

I think so, but I must admit I'm beginning to lose patience with them [the byz]. Everytime I think something is clear, another hitch turns up. Their history, especially militarily seems to be made up mainly of speculation and opinion.

---

It is indeed and it is a point of frustration equally for making a mod as for many other things too.

To put it in a LOTR kind of way with cheesy Hollywood voice, very few things are trully known about Byzantium "...for none now lives to remember it..."

If i was in your shoes, i would make their units fight in a certain style when combined in each era that is reflecting their strengths (organisation/professionality, focus on tactics, avoid taking losses due to having to fight in multiple fronts wth lesser numbers, good use of missiles, brute force only at the tip point) rather than anything else. I would use what accounts have to offer to make the mod enjoyable in a way i wished without being ahistorical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

There are far too many conflicting sources without bringing wikipedia into it (:laugh4:), but that isn't far off what I've read elsewhere. The Skutatoi and Kontaratoi apparently formed a kind of "base" for the cavalry and nothing more. The cavalry being the mainstay of the force.

I think so, but I must admit I'm beginning to lose patience with them [the byz]. Everytime I think something is clear, another hitch turns up. Their history, especially militarily seems to be made up mainly of speculation and opinion. :sweatdrop:

---

I second excetchzebe1 in saying that you should probably just "go with what you got". Given how information on the Byzantines' order of battle seems to be both relatively scant and/or contradictory, I think it's going to be all but impossible to come up with a unit roster that's truly "realistic". Unless and until someone comes up with a way to travel back in time, we could sit here merrily debating the issue until the Second Coming. ~:rolleyes:

I would say go ahead and change the BI to the Skutatoi as planned, redo the Katanks if you wish, and then call it good. Otherwise the Byz unit roster will be in a permanent state of flux, which could cause an existential crisis. The poor soldiers will begin wondering whether or not they're really there, or if they're just figments of their own (digital) imaginations. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I've so far modded the Royal Palace as a unique building.

---

By the way, I've been meaning to tell you that I really appreciate the change. Being able to train bodyguard units in just my capital definitely helps with the immersion factor. :2thumbsup:

Ok so let's break it down somewhat. As the original Byzantine units, we have:

Trebizond Archers
Byzanine Infantry
Kataphraktoi
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers

The question is, are the extra units needed? (giving them CA style names):

Trebizond Archers
Byzantine Light Infantry
Byzantine Infantry
Byzantine Spearmen
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers

The next question is, are the following unit renames good enough?

Trebizond Archers -> Toxotai
Byzantine Light Infantry -> Psiloi
Byzantine Infantry -> Skutatoi
Byzantine Spearmen -> Kontaratoi
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers -> Kataphraktoi Toxotai
Pronoiai Allagion -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi
Byzantine Cavalry -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?)
Byzantine Lancers -> Pronoiarioi Stratiotai

After this is the unit stats for the following, with my suggestions so far:

Toxotai - as Archers
Psiloi - as Trebizond Archers
Skutatoi - As Byzantine Infantry 60 man unit
Kontaratoi - As Chivalric Sergeants (or Feudal Sergeants or Armoured Spearmen or other?) 100 man unit
Kataphraktoi - No change - 20 man scalable unit
Kataphraktoi Toxotai - As Kataphraktoi with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi - As Pronoiai Allagion
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?) - As Pronoiai Allagion with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Stratiotai - As Byzantine Lancers

Unit dependencies also need to be finalised.

This is where we've got so far renaming Ottoman units, as per Belisario's recommendations:

Sipahis of the Porte -> Kapikulu Sipahis

Ottoman Sipahis -> Anatolian Timarli Sipahis

Rumelian Timarli Sipahis (new unit possibly similar in appearance and stats to the vanilla Pronoiai Allagion)

Janissary infantry -> Nefer Janissaries

Janissary Heavy Infantry -> Zirhli Nefer Janissaries

Janissary Archers -> ?

Ottoman Infantry -> Zirhli Nefer or Baltaci

Saracen Infantry -> Anatolian Infantry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Ok so let's break it down somewhat. As the original Byzantine units, we have:

Trebizond Archers
Byzanine Infantry
Kataphraktoi
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers

The question is, are the extra units needed? (giving them CA style names):

Trebizond Archers
Byzantine Light Infantry
Byzantine Infantry
Byzantine Spearmen
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers

The next question is, are the following unit renames good enough?

Trebizond Archers -> Toxotai
Byzantine Light Infantry -> Psiloi
Byzantine Infantry -> Skutatoi
Byzantine Spearmen -> Kontaratoi
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers -> Kataphraktoi Toxotai
Pronoiai Allagion -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi
Byzantine Cavalry -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?)
Byzantine Lancers -> Pronoiarioi Stratiotai

After this is the unit stats for the following, with my suggestions so far:

Toxotai - as Archers
Psiloi - as Trebizond Archers
Skutatoi - As Byzantine Infantry 60 man unit
Kontaratoi - As Chivalric Sergeants (or Feudal Sergeants or Armoured Spearmen or other?) 100 man unit
Kataphraktoi - No change - 20 man scalable unit
Kataphraktoi Toxotai - As Kataphraktoi with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi - As Pronoiai Allagion
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?) - As Pronoiai Allagion with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Stratiotai - As Byzantine Lancers

Unit dependencies also need to be finalised.

---

Not my field but I'd say go for it. A lot of work has gone into it really, and it's a drastic improvement from the original set-up:yes:

Glad to hear you got those Swedish Peasants working, I was thinking I might have put a little too much work on your shoulders:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The question is, are the extra units needed? (giving them CA style names):

Trebizond Archers
Byzantine Light Infantry
Byzantine Infantry
Byzantine Spearmen
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers
Pronoiai Allagion
Byzantine Cavalry
Byzantine Lancers

---

Well unless you're going to make the build requirements for Byz LI (Psiloi) insanely high, I think having both them and regular archers (Toxotai) would be pretty redundant. It would be like how the Muslim factions had both vanilla archers and Desert Archers -- seems rather pointless IMHO.

I'm also not sure about the katank HA's (Kataphraktoi Toxotai). Historically accurate they may be, but I have to wonder as to how often a Byzantine player would actually use them. Given that they'll still have access to Byz Cavalry (Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi/Toxotai), again it seems like it would be a rather redundant unit. Still, I can't deny that at least they seem to have actually existed, so what do I know? :shrug:

Other than that, however, the roster looks good. :thumbsup:

(Sheesh. I can't believe I'm actually arguing to pair *down* a faction's unit roster. Surely something is wrong with me....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The next question is, are the following unit renames good enough?

Trebizond Archers -> Toxotai
Byzantine Light Infantry -> Psiloi
Byzantine Infantry -> Skutatoi
Byzantine Spearmen -> Kontaratoi
Kataphraktoi
Kataphraktoi Horse Archers -> Kataphraktoi Toxotai
Pronoiai Allagion -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi
Byzantine Cavalry -> Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?)
Byzantine Lancers -> Pronoiarioi Stratiotai.

---

Looks good to me, Caravel. The only thing I can think of would be to maybe rename the regualar Kataphractoi as Klibanophoroi (if only to better differentiate between them and the Kataphractoi Toxotai), but that's it. I think you have a good list there. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

After this is the unit stats for the following, with my suggestions so far:

Toxotai - as Archers
Psiloi - as Trebizond Archers
Skutatoi - As Byzantine Infantry 60 man unit
Kontaratoi - As Chivalric Sergeants (or Feudal Sergeants or Armoured Spearmen or other?) 100 man unit
Kataphraktoi - No change - 20 man scalable unit
Kataphraktoi Toxotai - As Kataphraktoi with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi - As Pronoiai Allagion
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi (Toxotai? or ?) - As Pronoiai Allagion with less charge and compound bows
Pronoiarioi Stratiotai - As Byzantine Lancers

Unit dependencies also need to be finalised.

---

I would say keep the Kontaratoi as CS-type units (though with lower charge and higher morale stats, maybe?); and to keep the Pronoiarioi Toxotai the same, unless you wanted to up their melee stats a bit (I would otherwise leave them be). Everything else looks pretty peachy. ~:)

A solid list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Well unless you're going to make the build requirements for Byz LI (Psiloi) insanely high, I think having both them and regular archers (Toxotai) would be pretty redundant. It would be like how the Muslim factions had both vanilla archers and Desert Archers -- seems rather pointless IMHO.

---

Agreed.

Well the idea behind the regular archers was to have a replacement for the vanilla archers (which the byzantine cannot access). They would have the same stats.

Here are the dependencies I'm looking at:

Toxotai - Bowyer
Psiloi - Bowyer
Skutatoi - Swordsmith
Kontaratoi - Spearmakers Guild
Kataphraktoi - Horse Breeders' Guild and Armourers' Guild
Kataphraktoi Toxotai - Horse Breeders' Guild and Bowyers' Guild
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi - Horse Breeders' Guild and Spearmakers' Guild
Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi Toxotai - Horse Breeders' Guild and Bowyers' Guild and Swordsmith
Pronoiarioi Stratiotai - Spearmakers' Workshop and Horse Breeder

I'm with Martok on the Toxotai and Kataphraktoi Toxotai, I think they would be largely redundant.

The recruitment and support costs will be much the same apart from the Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi Toxotai which will need to be adjusted in line with the Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi. I would make them cheaper to build but slightly more costly to support.

I've been looking into the Mongol Warriors. I was thinking of reassigning them as a dismount only unit for the Steppe Horse Archers, Steppe Heavy Cavalry and Mongol Horse Archers, and renaming them as "Dismounted Steppe Horsemen".

This will also, hopefully, stop the Mongols Emerging with them, though that is possibly hardcoded? There is another unit bif known as "MongolAuxilliaryCavalry", this could be introduced as another mongol unit called simply "Mongol Cavaly", to give three types of cavaly.

Sounds good. To stop them emerging when the Mongols do go to GnomeEditor (their entry is #72) and find column 11. Then delete the bit that says "MONG_RAIDERS(-15),", this will prevent them emerging with the Mongols. Or you could set it to "MONG_RAIDERS(0),"; either way works.

Gah, who is this Cambyses II? What happened to Manco/Caravel ~;)

Once this mod comes out I'll reinstall MTW/VI immediately :2thumbsup:

About the Scutatoi...maybe you can give them stats similar to swordsmen, but with a spear animation and an anti-cav bonus?

I have made a Infopic for the Byzantine Spearmen (Kontaratoi). I got the image from the Osprey book Byzantine Armies 1118-1461. You can download the infopic in this link (search the file ByzantineSpearmen_InfoPic.zip):
http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Mt...ads/MTWupload/

An idea for Sicily: apparently Frederick II allowed muslims to settle there as his personal guard (mainly because he had good relations with muslim princes, and they didn´t mind when he got excommed, apparently).
So, maybe the King of Sicily could have access to some muslim units? Perhaps Faris, or maybe Desert Archers?

You know, that's a good point, Guy. I rather like that idea. I'm not sure about Faris, but it probably wouldn't be unrealistic to have some sort of Muslim archer unit available to the Sicilians. :yes:

Still, it's entirely up to Cambyses/Caravel as to whether he decides to add something like that to the Pocket Mod or not. I know creating new units is a non-trivial task, so it's probably better to ask him.

Medmod IV, makes in fact use of this: the Sicilians can recruit muslims as their spear unit in all eras as well as their light cavalry. Its an interesting addition that gives a distinct style to their roster that needs to be IMO different than the Northern Italians. Also adding North African provinces to their homelands makes up for nice colonial wars.

Noir

Well, you have a point there. Simply adding Sicily and/or naples as provinces where some muslim unit such as Desert Archers could be built would make a Sicilian player able to exploit all desert provinces for his unit production.

Plus, on the gameplay side, it would not show the "mercenary" status of those units, so it would be fitting to use a custom one. Then again, this does not necessarily mean over-complication, as an already working muslim unit (maybe the Futuwwas, or Janissary bowmen?) could be copied, and used with a different description along the lines of "Territorial disputes with the Papacy have forced the Crown of Sicily resort to recruiting muslim settlers in their lands as soldiers. These men are both indifferent to excommunication threats and loyal to the King of Sicily beyond any kinship with fellow muslim rulers, making them a fierce fighting force in Sicilian armies - as long as they are paid"

They could be called... Mercenary Sarracen Militia, or something?

Why not increase their number from 60 to l00?

Concerning my observation of Spain after my tweaking of Spanish jinetes to make them more expensive to produce and keep

As I said, they managed to kick the almohads out of Spain by lll8, or so, but they only had four units of jinetes in their attacking armies. The main strike force were the king and his heirs.

together they carried the battle to the Sahara, and by ll32, or so, the Almohads were wiped out
HOWEVER
Spain´s abuse of heirs in combat meant that eventually, the King was left without any heir, and he died without offspring or generals of royal blood. That very same turn the Almohads resurged in eight provinces (I´d check which, but I´m having trouble holding to my rump and bankrupt Holy Roman Empire as it is. Likely I´ll have to slash and burn some British city)

Also, I lowered the build time of Ballistas from 2 to one turn. It doesn´t seem to unbalance them, and it makes them fit as a cheap and (mostly) worthless artillery campaign, as their inherent inaccuracy makes hitting things a fluke. And the AI doesn´t go into ballista-building sprees because of this either, for the record.

I'm unsure as to whether it is Jinetes giving The Castilian - Leonese the edge over the Moors. The missiles are after all not taken into account in AI vs AI autocalced battles so it's not the missiles causing it. The Jinete stats are as follows:

Charge: 2 Melee: 2 Defence: 2 Armour: 3 Morale: 2

When compared with Mounted Sergeants:

Charge: 8 Melee: 2 Defence: 2 Armour: 3 Morale: 2

Hobilars:

Charge: 6 Melee: 1 Defence: 2 Armour: 3 Morale: 0

and Steppe Cavalry:

Charge: 6 Melee: 2 Defence: 1 Armour: 3 Morale: 0

It is obvious that Jinetes are not that special. So the problem is their abundance as you have noted. Basically the Spanish are spamming this unit, so they could be the problem.

Mounted Sergeants cost less to raise but have the same maintenance costs. The difference is that they require "{SPEARMAKER2, HORSE_BREEDER2}" whereas Jinetes require only {HORSE_BREEDER2} 2. In view of this I would leave the support and training costs alone and increase the Jinetes dependencies to "{SPEARMAKER2, HORSE_BREEDER2}", and remove mounted Sergeants from the Spanish/Aragonese unit roster. The Spearmakers' Workshop and Horse Breeder would both depend on the Keep in the Pocket Mod so that would further restrict them. This will prevent early Jinete spamming and allow the Moors to develop.

Quote:

---

Mounted Sergeants cost less to raise but have the same maintenance costs. The difference is that they require "{SPEARMAKER2, HORSE_BREEDER2}" whereas Jinetes require only {HORSE_BREEDER2} 2. In view of this I would leave the support and training costs alone and increase the Jinetes dependencies to "{SPEARMAKER2, HORSE_BREEDER2}", and remove mounted Sergeants from the Spanish/Aragonese unit roster. The Spearmakers' Workshop and Horse Breeder would both depend on the Keep in the Pocket Mod so that would further restrict them. This will prevent early Jinete spamming and allow the Moors to develop.

---

That was the first thing I tried. Well, actually, raising the horse breeder level required to 3 instead of 2. It resulted in the annihilation of Spain/Castile in a short while. Apparently the AI can´t hold them back without spamming cavalry, and has an inborn tendence to do so, as they will still build as many Jinetes as they can if you make them more expensive. :juggle2:

Have you checked the building/training influences?

Code:

---

"POVERTY_STRICKEN(133), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(13.3), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(159.6), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(159.6), CATHOLIC_TRADER(133), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(133), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(159.6), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(106.4), POPE(66.5), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(106.4), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(66.5), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(106.4), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(159.6), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(133), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(133), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(159.6), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(159.6), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(212.8), REBELS(133), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(33.25)"

---

I'd say they're pretty high on the AI's list of priorities overall. Compared to Mounted Sergeants:

Code:

---

"POVERTY_STRICKEN(119), DESPERATE_DEFENCE(6.8), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST(81.6), CATHOLIC_NAVAL_EXPANSIONIST(81.6), CATHOLIC_TRADER(68), CATHOLIC_CRUSADER_TRADER(68), CATHOLIC_EXPANSIONIST_CRUSADER(81.6), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE_CRUSADER(54.4), POPE(34), CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE(54.4), CATHOLIC_ISOLATIONIST(34), ORTHODOX_DEFENSIVE(54.4), ORTHODOX_EXPANSIONIST(81.6), ORTHODOX_STAGNANT(68), MUSLIM_PEACEFUL(68), MUSLIM_EXPANSIONIST(81.6), MUSLIM_DEVOUT(81.6), BARBARIAN_RAIDER(108.8), REBELS(68), CLOSE_TO_SUPPORT_LIMIT(11.56)"

---

Update:

I had been taking notes from this thread on Friday, and had compiled those notes into a "to do" list. So far I have implemented the following changes from these notes:

1) Renamed the Bulgarian Brigands and installed them as an archer unit for the Russians, Poles, Hungarians and Novgorod. Simply called "Archers". These faction now recruit those archers and not the western European ones. The Muslims and Byzantine cannot recruit either, but have their own archers.

2) The Mongol "warriors" are now Dismounted Steppe Horsemen, only available through dismount. Several Steppe cavalry types (KRC, SHC, MHC, MHA, MAC) dismount to these, though Steppe Cavalry and Steppe Horse Archer now dismount to (eastern) Archers, to avoid the player exploiting this and dismounting these units to acquire Dismounted Steppe Horsemen cheaply. The Dismounted Steppe Horsemen no longer emerge with the Mongols.

3) "Mongol Auxilliary Cavalry" 6/3/3/4/6 introduced as an extra mongol medium cavalry unit to emerge with the Mongols - needs info pic.

4) Incest / Secret Incest vice wording changed to be more general.

5) Kataphraktoi, early era only, increased to 40 man scalable units, Kapikulu Sipahi increased to 40 man scalable units, Boyars increased to 40 man scalable units.

6) New Bodyguard unit for Byzantine. Dynatoi Oiketai, in effect scalable 20 man units of Kataphraktoi.

7) New Bodyguard unit for Kievan Rus and Novgorod. <name needed>, in effect scalable 20 man units of Boyars.

8) New Bodyguard unit for Ottomans. Sipahi Oglen, in effect scalable 20 man units of Kapikulu Sipahi.

9) Support costs for bodyguards are very low, training costs are very high.

10) Kontaratoi info pic added

11) Armies crossing from the Sinai into Egypt face a bridge battle - though not in the other direction.

12) Ballistas build time one turn.

13) Gothic Knights available to all catholic factions.

14) Nizari Fedayeen now also depend on the Ribat.

15) Ghazi Infantry depend on the Ribat instead of the Mosque (I'm not sure about axe wielding loons being "trained" in a mosque, a Ribat seems much more appropriate).

16) Russian faction added to the early era as the Kievan Rus faction, occupying many eastern provinces. Symbology and faction colours yet to be finalised. Assistance with finding a suitable symbol for the Kievans and another for Novgorod would be appreciated as the current symbol is incorrect for both. Also info on the royal lines of the Kievans would be helpful.

:bow:

Edit: My experiments with the rebel income buildings have not yielded any results so far. Their economy simply doesn't add up. No matter how much the income/expenses statement states their income to be, they still go into the red within a year or two. I haven't tried the cut off province approach, that would probably work, but is something I'd prefer to avoid.

Quote:

---

My point was that Portugal could be added in earl as "County of Portugal" and in High and Late as as kingdom. It is fairly easy to do this.

---

How about "duchy"? It started off as one with the con&#231;uest of Lisbon.

Quote:

---

The Almohads pretty much swept away the Almoravid Dynasty from within as what was effectively a large scale Islamist rebellion.

---

Actually, they wiped them out just as the Almoravids had wiped out the taifas . They had come up in a similar fashion "attending the pleads of their iberian brethen". But for practical purposes it&#180;s the same.

Quote:

---

I see the representation of the Cid's occupation of Valencia as an irrelevance. He would only have held Valencia for a matter of years before his death. It was back in Almoravid control quite quickly.

---

Indeed. In fact, while he held it, as a vassal of Castile, it WAS largely irrelevant, as pretty much the local laws of the former muslim rulers, and the muslim population, stayed in place. Still the guy&#180;s hyped, for some reason. I guess people find the idea of tying a dead man to a horse and routing an army as hilarious.

Quote:

---

1) Renamed the Bulgarian Brigands and installed them as an archer unit for the Russians, Poles, Hungarians and Novgorod. Simply called "Archers". These faction now recruit those archers and not the western European ones. The Muslims and Byzantine cannot recruit either, but have their own archers.

---

So, if I get this right: Now Byzantines&muslims (which had access to "specialized" compound bow units) have access to both these and a "regular" bow unit? :nod:

Quote:

---

The Dismounted Steppe Horsemen no longer emerge with the Mongols.

---

Kind of made you wonder "Where did they leave their horses?" :p
Besides, they were a hindrance on the mongol AI, as once you had beaten back their cavalry, they lacked enough mobility NOT to be s&#231;uikked by cavalry

Quote:

---

16) Russian faction added to the early era as the Kievan Rus faction, occupying many eastern provinces. Symbology and faction colours yet to be finalised. Assistance with finding a suitable symbol for the Kievans and another for Novgorod would be appreciated as the current symbol is incorrect for both. Also info on the royal lines of the Kievans would be helpful.

---

Nice. I think that Novgorod had something on the order of a black castle as an image, not sure

Quote:

---

6) New Bodyguard unit for Byzantine. Dynatoi Oiketai, in effect scalable 20 man units of Kataphraktoi

---

Royal palace dependent?

Quote:

---

4) Incest / Secret Incest vice wording changed to be more general.

---

Another good idea. Afterall, the dynastic mismash can mean that a "king" is marrying his cousin or niece, not his daughter.
Could also the "piety penalty" made less steep? And/or add some other kind of penalty, such as morale. After all, dynastic inbreeding was run-of-the-mill...

Quote:

---

12) Ballistas build time one turn.

13) Gothic Knights available to all catholic factions.

---

:smile:

Btw, are the Gothic Knight stats changed? I seem to recall you mentioned changing them in an earlier version, but I don&#180;t know if that made it in or not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

How about "duchy"? It started off as one with the con&#231;uest of Lisbon.

---

Probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Actually, they wiped them out just as the Almoravids had wiped out the taifas . They had come up in a similar fashion "attending the pleads of their iberian brethen". But for practical purposes it&#180;s the same.

---

Not what I've read. The Almohads emerged from the Atlas mountains regions (within Almoravid territory) and overthrew the Almoravids. They were a movement with popular support both in Andalusia and the Maghreb. They appeared as a direct result of the lax attitude to islam among the Almoravids whom of which may be considered "moderate".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Indeed. In fact, while he held it, as a vassal of Castile, it WAS largely irrelevant, as pretty much the local laws of the former muslim rulers, and the muslim population, stayed in place. Still the guy&#180;s hyped, for some reason. I guess people find the idea of tying a dead man to a horse and routing an army as hilarious.

---

It seems that CA simply felt the need to represent these famous historical characters even though they don't really fit in. Valencia should start as a Muslim province perhaps occupied by Castile, with El Cid as the general, or as simply an Almoravid province.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

So, if I get this right: Now Byzantines&muslims (which had access to "specialized" compound bow units) have access to both these and a "regular" bow unit? :nod:

---

No, the Byzantines will not be able to train them. Only the Rus, Novgorod, Hungarians and Poles. The unit will be compound bow equipped for now, though if this imbalances the game somewhat, I will change this. The compound bow is still in the testing phase after all. It would be a good idea to have a more generic unit equipped with it in order that it can be fully tested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Kind of made you wonder "Where did they leave their horses?" :p
Besides, they were a hindrance on the mongol AI, as once you had beaten back their cavalry, they lacked enough mobility NOT to be s&#231;uikked by cavalry

---

I found them easy pickings and it was annoying to see the first mongol battle consisting almost entirely of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Nice. I think that Novgorod had something on the order of a black castle as an image, not sure

---

I'll have to look into this. I was working on the Kiev one yesterday, but wasn't happy with the result in the end, so I'll start that again when I've more time.

@Noir: Kiev symbol :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Royal palace dependent?

---

No, but could be I suppose. This is not an issue as yet, as I need to re-do a lot of the unit dependencies anyway. I have changed the Metalsmith into the Blacksmith and removed the weapon upgrades. The Blacksmith no longer depends on the Iron mine and can be built in all provinces. I intend to use this building as the prerequisite for:

1) Militias such as UM, MS and Halberdiers
2) All Cavalry
3) Axe equipped units such as Vikings, woodsmen or Ghazi etc
4) Lower class sword units such as clansmen or gallowglasses

My reasoning for this, on a historical basis, is that crude swords, axes and pole arms used by the peasant levies were usually rude weapons knocked up by a blacksmith. Any respectable smithy could put together a decent axe, but forging a good sword or battle axe, especially that which was fit for nobility was a different trade requiring much more skill and expertise.

I have also removed the armour upgrades from the armourer.

The next stage will be to assess every units equipment needs and add the necessary prerequisites required to equip that unit. My hope is that this will not be at all complicated, but in fact simple, perhaps simpler than it is at present. The system will work something like this:
A few units need first to be examined to use as examples:

Men at Arms: This unit has a helm, shield, sword and mail armour. It would probably need at least the Armourers' Workshop, as I will be using this as the default base level armourer. The Swordsmith would be required for the sword.

Chivalric Men at Arms: As above, though the sword and equipment would be of higher quality so; Swordsmiths' Workshop and Armourer's Guild.

Futuwwa: These would be a fanatical unit that would also depend on the Ribat. The additional dependencies would be the Swordsmith and Bowyers' Workshop. The latter due to the unit having the compound bow.

Turcoman Foot Soldiers: Swordsmith, Bowyers' Workshop, Armourers' Workshop.

Psiloi: Swordsmith, Bowyers' Workshop, Armourer. The armourer would be the default for units that are virtually unarmourerd (armour: 1) but carry a shield.

Feudal Knights: Royal Court, Horse Breeder's Workshop, Blacksmiths' Workshop, Spearmakers' Workshop, Armourer's Workshop, Swordsmiths' Workshop. This seems a lot and come to think of it I haven't checked if a unit can support this many dependencies, but if it does work it won't be an issue as the build times and costs of most military buildings will be reduced anyway to assist the AI. I've added the Swordsmith line to all Knights because I feel that in reality they would make use of maces, swords, battle axes flails etc, whilst in close combat.

Chivalric Knights and Order Knights: Would be as above but with all buildings upgraded one level.

Lancers: Would be as above but with Royal Court and Armourer upgraded one more level.

Gothic Knights: Master Level Military buildings and highest level royal court.

Hobilars: Spearmaker, Horse Farmer, Blacksmith.

Mounted Sergeants: Spearmakers' Workshop, Armourer, Horse Farmer, Blacksmith.

Crossbowmen: Bowyers' Workshop, Armourers' Workshop.

Archer: Bowyer


All of these are only examples, and those dependencies may not be the ones used. I could base the requirements on unit stats also, instead of just gut instinct. For example on: attack, weapon type, armour level, is cavalry?, has shield? AP?, anti cav?, cav defence, etc, etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Another good idea. Afterall, the dynastic mismash can mean that a "king" is marrying his cousin or niece, not his daughter.
Could also the "piety penalty" made less steep? And/or add some other kind of penalty, such as morale. After all, dynastic inbreeding was run-of-the-mill...

---

I'm not sure if vnvs can be modded in this way, I'm sure they're not, I'll have to check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Btw, are the Gothic Knight stats changed? I seem to recall you mentioned changing them in an earlier version, but I don&#180;t know if that made it in or not...

---

They were changed in v1.0.6.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=181

:bow:

I like some of the innovations mentioned. I'll give some more detailed feedback and input when I have more time.

(split from post in the other thread)

I was messing with the unit rosters today, removing redundant units (I'm no where near done as yet). I have renamed Chivalric Sergeants and Vanilla Square Shield Spearmen to "Sergeants". They are now effectively Sergeants for the three eras. The first have been given a +1 morale bonus as they were severely lacking previously. The others are unchanged for now. As to the faction association:

[Early - Catholic Square Shield Spearmen] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Danes, Hungarians and Poles.

[High - Feudal] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Italians

[Late - Chivalric] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Italians

Armoured Spearmen are renamed simply Spearmen and are Russian/Novgorod High/Late only.

[Early - Round Shield] Spearmen (same stats as Early Sergeants): Hungarians and Poles

[Muslim - Square Shield*] Spearmen (same stats as Early Sergeants): Moors/Turks Early only.

*broken off into a separate unit

In the Early era the Danes have their own Spearmen, namely Viking Carls (originally thralls), so they don't need the Early Sergeants nor the Round Shield Spearmen.

The Egyptians have the Nubians in all eras, so don't need the Muslim Spearmen.

The Rus and Novgorod have the Rus Spearmen in Early.

So that does it, for now, for the spear units. The Byzantine have their own Kontaratoi, the Italians have Italian Infantry for High and Late, the Turks Saracens from high onwards and the Moors al-Muwahhidun Infantry ("Almohad" Infantry) for High/Late. So I think I have that pretty well covered. This is all based on an idea posted by YourLordandConqueror. :bow:

The next stage is the Militias, then it's onto the training dependency buildings. Nearly all of those need changing, and I mean logical changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II

(split from post in the other thread)

I was messing with the unit rosters today, removing redundant units (I'm no where near done as yet). I have renamed Chivalric Sergeants and Vanilla Square Shield Spearmen to "Sergeants". They are now effectively Sergeants for the three eras. The first have been given a +1 morale bonus as they were severely lacking previously. The others are unchanged for now. As to the faction association:

[Early - Catholic Square Shield Spearmen] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Danes, Hungarians and Poles.

[High - Feudal] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Italians

[Late - Chivalric] Sergeants: All Catholic factions except Italians

Armoured Spearmen are renamed simply Spearmen and are Russian/Novgorod High/Late only.

[Early - Round Shield] Spearmen (same stats as Early Sergeants): Hungarians and Poles

[Muslim - Square Shield*] Spearmen (same stats as Early Sergeants): Moors/Turks Early only.

*broken off into a separate unit

In the Early era the Danes have their own Spearmen, namely Viking Carls (originally thralls), so they don't need the Early Sergeants nor the Round Shield Spearmen.

The Egyptians have the Nubians in all eras, so don't need the Muslim Spearmen.

The Rus and Novgorod have the Rus Spearmen in Early.

So that does it, for now, for the spear units. The Byzantine have their own Kontaratoi, the Italians have Italian Infantry for High and Late, the Turks Saracens from high onwards and the Moors al-Muwahhidun Infantry ("Almohad" Infantry) for High/Late. So I think I have that pretty well covered. This is all based on an idea posted by YourLordandConqueror. :bow:

---

Sounds good, Cambyses. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II

The next stage is the Militias, then it's onto the training dependency buildings. Nearly all of those need changing, and I mean logical changes.

---

You mean you're going to change them from the Town Watch/Town Watch tech line? What did you have in mind instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Sounds good, Cambyses. :thumbsup:


You mean you're going to change them from the Town Watch/Town Watch tech line? What did you have in mind instead?

---

Well so far we have a line of militia buildings that do nothing apart from to provide provincial happiness bonuses, and turn out some mediocre units. I have my doubts about Pikemen and Halberdiers being "Militias" as such, I also have my doubts about the militia being a unit training building at all, they certainly shouldn't be the sole dependency of any unit (but I'm not going to cover that as yet). It is my opinion that the militia buildings should somehow effect income and perhaps bestow a title at level 4, also perhaps providing an income as Noir suggested to represent the lessened crime rate, order and their capacity as fire fighters. This would make them more valuable to, and useable by the muslims and orthodox.

I would be interested in ideas (and sources) as to what constituted a "militia" in Feudal Europe and what type of arms and equipment were used. I'm not entirely convinced by the urban militiaman / militia sergeant with the 'tommy' helmet and pole axe. From what I've read of militias they were variously armed, but usually swordsmen in the style of the FMAA.

Strange idea, but what if you were to restrict the UM/MS to the Italians, and possibly the Byzantines? Use the Islamic version of the UM/MS as the basis for another unit type, Almohad only? Just a suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Strange idea, but what if you were to restrict the UM/MS to the Italians, and possibly the Byzantines? Use the Islamic version of the UM/MS as the basis for another unit type, Almohad only? Just a suggestion.

---

I'd always assumed that the wide brimmed helmets were used in the warmer climes to keep the sun off? With regard to the Byzantine, the militias look unsuited due to the style of weapon and gear which has more of a Frankish or western appearance. To me their equipment looks like it is adapted for use in the holy land. I was thinking Outremer troops? It may be that they could be infantry recruited by the Catholics, or some of the Catholics, but only in Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli and Palestine?

The Muslim Militia Sergeants and Urban Militia are currently Almohad only. These would probably have to be split off and or removed altogether. I'm not so sure what they are supposed to represent, perhaps Andalusian troops? I need more info on this before I can do any more.

One thing I&#180;m curious about is the weaponry used by Spanish muslims. It occured to me that maybe they purchased most of their weapons from the Christian kingdoms. I&#180;m making a google search on it.

Thread moved from the Main Hall per request.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

One thing I&#180;m curious about is the weaponry used by Spanish muslims. It occured to me that maybe they purchased most of their weapons from the Christian kingdoms. I&#180;m making a google search on it.

---

I do know that the Taifa kingdoms had armour and weapons more like the Christian kingdoms, than the Moors, but I'm not sure of the source.

I thought up a few ideas last night...

1) What if you were to add a "disloyalty" bonus to military buildings, and a "loyalty" bonus to ecomic buildings. This may cause the AI to do one of two things: either increase its garrison, or build up it's economy. It may also slow down the computer in it's tech advancment, so it will need some testing.

2) Remove the militia building line entirely. Or better yet, rename them so they represent military training centers. They could hold all the morale, valour and discipline upgrades. I have a few name ideas, but I'd prefer to hear about you think.

3) Add titles to "master" rank buildings. You could have "Master of the Emperor's Citadel" or "Warden of the xyz".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

I thought up a few ideas last night...

1) What if you were to add a "disloyalty" bonus to military buildings, and a "loyalty" bonus to ecomic buildings. This may cause the AI to do one of two things: either increase its garrison, or build up it's economy. It may also slow down the computer in it's tech advancment, so it will need some testing.

---

This is a difficult one, as the AI often goes military mad, especially in valour bonus regions, and could end up with a province revolting because they built a lot of military buildings first and not a lot else. The historical/real life relativity is also an issue. Let's suppose that you build an impressive new town swordsmith in Normandy. I doubt the populace would be effected by it. If you had converted to paganism and built a sacrificial shrine there, they might be annoyed, but worried by new military buildings? I'd say not. I would have fought that a stronger military presence would help to cow the population?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

2) Remove the militia building line entirely. Or better yet, rename them so they represent military training centers. They could hold all the morale, valour and discipline upgrades. I have a few name ideas, but I'd prefer to hear about you think.

---

Barracks? I had thought about this but wasn't sure about it's historicalness in a feudal society. For the Byzantine yes, but I'm not sure about the others. Still it's a good idea. Perhaps the Militia buildings could be renamed as e.g. "Barracks", "Town Barracks", "Barracks of the Citadel" and "Barracks of the Fortress" or something similar. These would then be added as the main training facilities for almost all troops such as Sergeants, men at Arms Mounted Sergeants etc. The valour bonus could be added to the highest level barracks and not to the weapons makers. This would represent better training as opposed to better weapons. Certain units such as Knights, Vikings and Highland Clansmen would not come from the barracks, but perhaps the muster field from VI could be added as a lower level barracks than the current town watch? This would depend on the fort only and allow the training of units such as clansmen. Note that this wouldn't replace a units other dependencies (in particular the proposed specific dependencies that I will be working on soon) it would instead add to these. A foot unit armed with a basic sword and shield would still need at least a swordsmith and armourer for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

3) Add titles to "master" rank buildings. You could have "Master of the Emperor's Citadel" or "Warden of the xyz".

---

I'm not so sure about that, for me a Master Spearmaker would give someone the title "Master Spearmaker". :dizzy2:

This may work for the highest level Militia Building and the Royal Court buildings though (remember the title to the highest level Royal Court is technically the title to the province anyway, so I'm thinking about lesser titles (the Duke's right hand man for example?)). We just need to come up with some historical titles. :book:

During the period covered by MTW "urban militias" were the main source of infantry troops for the Castilian-Leonese rulers (and I suspect the same in Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre and Portugal). These infantrymen provided by the "concejos" (town council) were called "peones" in the historical sources and their terms of service were regulated by the "fueros" (code of laws) of each city. Their weaponry included a varied set of weapons such as spears, maces, poleaxes, axes... The concejos also provided important contingents of cavalrymen, known as "caballeros villanos" (villager or commoner cavalrymen). In the context of the frontier warfare social promotion was common, so a "peón" could became a "caballero villano" if he was able of maintain war horse and good arms. Some "caballeros villanos" were influential figures in the social and political life of the "concejos", and they could became members of the lesser nobility ("infanzones") after a successful career.

May I suggest that for the highest level of the Millita Line of buildings, or perhaps even lower at say level three or two, we could have a "Sheriff of x" Provincial Title for Catholic factions. Perhaps providing a small loyalty and a dread bonus to represent the fear he will instil upon criminals and brigands.

That is actually a good idea, but it would have to be localised for different factions, otherwise we would have a Turkish Sheriff! :laugh4:

Once I get some ideas together for some equivalent titles for other factions I'll definitely add the sheriff title though.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II

This is a difficult one, as the AI often goes military mad, especially in valour bonus regions, and could end up with a province revolting because they built a lot of military buildings first and not a lot else. The historical/real life relativity is also an issue. Let's suppose that you build an impressive new town swordsmith in Normandy. I doubt the populace would be effected by it. If you had converted to paganism and built a sacrificial shrine there, they might be annoyed, but worried by new military buildings? I'd say not. I would have fought that a stronger military presence would help to cow the population?

---

Thye idea behind it was to curve the AI's tendency to go for military buildings and to appeal to happiness buildings. By making "military" buildings have a negative loyalty bonus and giving economic buildings a positive loyalty bonus, the AI MIGHT start caring about it's economy as much as the player does. Needs testing though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II


Barracks? I had thought about this but wasn't sure about it's historicalness in a feudal society. For the Byzantine yes, but I'm not sure about the others. Still it's a good idea. Perhaps the Militia buildings could be renamed as e.g. "Barracks", "Town Barracks", "Barracks of the Citadel" and "Barracks of the Fortress" or something similar. These would then be added as the main training facilities for almost all troops such as Sergeants, men at Arms Mounted Sergeants etc. The valour bonus could be added to the highest level barracks and not to the weapons makers. This would represent better training as opposed to better weapons. Certain units such as Knights, Vikings and Highland Clansmen would not come from the barracks, but perhaps the muster field from VI could be added as a lower level barracks than the current town watch? This would depend on the fort only and allow the training of units such as clansmen. Note that this wouldn't replace a units other dependencies (in particular the proposed specific dependencies that I will be working on soon) it would instead add to these. A foot unit armed with a basic sword and shield would still need at least a swordsmith and armourer for example.

---

You could tie them into the higher levels (Castle, Citadel, Fortress) for more historical accuracy. The muster field could be relageted to the Fort and/or Keep. Thus could also be the dependency for the Military Academy if we go this route. An idea on the bonuses could be: +1 morale for first level, +2 for second, +1 valor for third, and +2 valor or +1 valor and +2 morale for the final level. For the MA, we could have the same bonuses as the final building, but with the discipline bonus also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II

I'm not so sure about that, for me a Master Spearmaker would give someone the title "Master Spearmaker".

This may work for the highest level Militia Building and the Royal Court buildings though (remember the title to the highest level Royal Court is technically the title to the province anyway, so I'm thinking about lesser titles (the Duke's right hand man for example?)). We just need to come up with some historical titles.

---

Errr... a bit of miscommunication there, sorry about that. What I meant was that buildings such as the Military Academy, the University, Surgeons ???? could have thier own titles. If it's possible to set multiple buildings for a single title, then we could also have all the "smith" buildings as a requirement for a title such as "Lord's Master at Arms" or "Lord's Master Smith", etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Thye idea behind it was to curve the AI's tendency to go for military buildings and to appeal to happiness buildings. By making "military" buildings have a negative loyalty bonus and giving economic buildings a positive loyalty bonus, the AI MIGHT start caring about it's economy as much as the player does. Needs testing though.

---

I don't think the AI can take happiness bonuses into account, that is that it doesn't seem to know the bonus exists, so sadly that wouldn't really effect the AI's approach to building. The only real way to make the AI want to build something is to change the build influences or give it a good income. I have found that the AI goes mad for the lev1_income or cathedral income buildings. The forester for example is extremely attractive to the AI and it will try to build those, and upgrades, before anything else. Their building influences are only the same as mines so it seems that it is the large income that attracts the AI above all else, except for maybe the valour bonus regions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

You could tie them into the higher levels (Castle, Citadel, Fortress) for more historical accuracy. The muster field could be relageted to the Fort and/or Keep. Thus could also be the dependency for the Military Academy if we go this route. An idea on the bonuses could be: +1 morale for first level, +2 for second, +1 valor for third, and +2 valor or +1 valor and +2 morale for the final level. For the MA, we could have the same bonuses as the final building, but with the discipline bonus also.

---

The problem with tying the barracks and military buildings into the higher level citadel/fortress tech tree is that it take the AI an age to tech up and it often bankrupts itself doing so. Under the newer system base level and workshop level depend on the keep and guild and master level depend on the castle. I feel that this is enough and that later castles should be exceptional fortifications and as dependencies for the cathedrals, grand mosques, and administration buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Errr... a bit of miscommunication there, sorry about that. What I meant was that buildings such as the Military Academy, the University, Surgeons ???? could have thier own titles. If it's possible to set multiple buildings for a single title, then we could also have all the "smith" buildings as a requirement for a title such as "Lord's Master at Arms" or "Lord's Master Smith", etc.

---

That is an idea, certainly for the Military Academy, this should give a decent title but not command stars. I am against giving command stars because the AI fails to use them correctly. For example it will give a title that gives 1 command star to a 0 command general sitting in a fort in a backwater province, instead of using it to top up the command of a four star general that is leading an army stack near the front line. The player can take advantage whereas the AI cannot.

I feel that titles should give loyalty, piety, dread and acumen only and not increase command, a stat that is only effective on the battlefield and which can only be improved through successful campaigning, not by being given a title. Yes the same can be said for the other stats, but they are not battlefield stats.

With regard to the titles, the problem is that a skilled Swordsmith would a) never be risked on the battlefield and b) would generally be a, probably aged, craftsmen and not a soldier. I think that nobility or military titles are needed and only for the Military Academy, highest level barracks and perhaps some of the royal court buildings?

:bow:

What about for The Brothel/Tavern? An actual spymaster anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II

...I feel that titles should give loyalty, piety, dread and acumen only and not increase command...

---

what about morale?
possibly mens morale would be lifted knowing their general is lord of this or that?
:bow:
B.

For what I understand the problem is not so much of realism as of the computer being able to use it. AKA: Playing Byzantium, if you pick a Prononai Kavalliori Toxotai, and make him Lord of Trebizond and Commander of the Fleet, you have a four-stars commander ex nihilo, which is the reasonable thing to do given the circumstances.
However, the computer will just grant the titles to whom it fancies best, and thus will leave the Admiral sitting in the backwaters, and make Lord of Trebizond a high acumen urban militia, or something after that fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barocca

what about morale?
possibly mens morale would be lifted knowing their general is lord of this or that?
:bow:
B.

---

Very true and a good idea, adding titles would be great, but I must admit I'm stumped as to how to go about it. I know how to change the titles for provinces but not for buildings.

:help:

Sorry Cambyses, but I'm just going to interrupt the flow of dissussion to make a small suggestion regarding units post-1205.

It's nothing major, however, it seems that the earlier troop types go completely out of fashion, cannot be re-trained or trained again. I'm sorry, yet I confess that I find it a little bit irritating. So, to solve this, may I suggest that post-1205, the old starting units still exist as a cheaper alternative that can still be trained and re-trained. However they instead go out-of-date in the Late Era, representing the out-dating of the equipment that these older units used, leaving the player with the later Chivalric troops only.

Apologies for the hijack.

The version you're playing, 1.0.6, has Feudal Men at arms and Chivalric Sergeants as Early and High/Late eras respectively. The reason I have made these units go out of fashion is because previously there was a lot of redundancy in that area. I have treated Feudal Sergeants and Chivalric Sergeants in the same way. 1.0.7 will take this a step further and add three eras to the catholic Spear units. Regular Square shield Spearmen will receive a 1 point valour bonus and will be renamed "Sergeants". They will be early era only. Feudal Sergeants will be renamed "Sergeants" and will be high era only, and Chivalric Sergeants also renamed "Sergeants" and Late era only.

This will give three levels of Catholic Spearmen, easier for the AI to deal with to give more balanced rosters. The annoyance will be when you have a good general leading an early Men at Arms or Sergeants unit that cannot be retrained in the high era, but what you have to remember is that the AI in a similar situation cannot retrain units anyway, whether they're out of fashion or not.

This is something that you will get used to in time. The old system of preserving the old unit types into the next era doesn't work. The AI will still keep training the inferior units and will not be able to compete. Similarly the Turks can only train the basic Spearmen until the high era when those are phased out and Anatolian Infantry are phased in. The Almoravids similarly only train basic spearmen until high, when al-Muwahhidun Infantry become available and the basic spearmen are phased out. The player will still be able to take advantage and retrain their units before the era changes over.

:bow:

Assuming that a satisfactory level of balance with this arrangement in faction roster and faction roster flow (over time) can be achieved, i find Omanes' idea good.

It's more easy i guess for balance purposes to completely discontinue rosters from era to era - however an arrangement of the form Omanes is proposing would make for smooth transition in tactics/style of tactics from era to era and thus a more elegant game overall IMO.

Many Thanks

Noir

*Sorry Cambyses II, when i started composing the present post you hadn't replied yet - post now (almost) irrelevant*

The problem with the idea is that to make FMAA become cheaper they would need to be added again as a duplicate unit. This would mean that the old unit would still not be retrainable. Otherwise I'd support the idea of a "grace period" wholeheartedly.

Sorry Cambyses, I should have been more clear about that, apologies. I meant that they would be cheaper as in they could cost less than the more elite and prestigious Chivalric troops - not generally cheaper overall. However, may I suggest that FMAA could still be re-trainable, but they upgrade to the next level when this occurs - quite like Royal Knights at current.

BTW, I'm sorry to trouble you again, but I think that I've noticed a small bug. Peculiarly, Chivalric Sargents have Poor Morale unlike their predecessors who have Average Morale. I'm very sorry if it's deliberate. Hope this helps, cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

Sorry Cambyses, I should have been more clear about that, apologies. I meant that they would be cheaper as in they could cost less than the more elite and prestigious Chivalric troops - not generally cheaper overall. However, may I suggest that FMAA could still be re-trainable, but they upgrade to the next level when this occurs - quite like Royal Knights at current.

---

Well they already cost significantly less to train and less to support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

BTW, I'm sorry to trouble you again, but I think that I've noticed a small bug. Peculiarly, Chivalric Sargents have Poor Morale unlike their predecessors who have Average Morale. I'm very sorry if it's deliberate. Hope this helps, cheers!

---

CS have lower morale than FS, those are the stats from Vanilla MTW - not a bug. I believe that the morale of CS was lowered due to them having more armour and so relying on a better general to up their valour, whereas FS are relying more on their own bravery not having as much armour as CS.

:bow:

I would have thought that their morale would be higher than their earlier version due to them having more confidence in the might of their better arms and improved, tougher and more re-enforced armour. May I suggest that their morale be increased to a higher level - perhaps simply normal morale, similar to that of their predecessors. I apologies for making so many suggestions, yet I find that, since they have lower morale, that it makes for a few nasty instant-rout battles - since they are often the main force and backbone of my front-line fighting armies. I also feel the same about the trained Byzantine Infantry - I find it quite odd that their morale is quite low even though they are a reasonably good fighting force otherwise. Since their forces are often the mainline of the almighty Byzantine military machine, also often resulting in a much higher battle speed, may I also suggest an increase in their morale to a higher level. May I suggest "Good Morale" would be a better level for them due to their good training and larger amounts of discipline than most units. Thanks!

BTW, didn't somebody mention something about transforming the Militia line of buildings into a barracks for the Byzantines. May I suggest that, if you were to accept this idea, that this could be the pre-requirement for all of the higher quality Byzantine Units that would be historically trained and disciplined units such as Byzantine Infantry or those Royal Guard Axemen type troops. Perhaps units that require the barracks line could have slightly better statistics, but be a little bit more expensive in terms of both training costs and upkeep costs. I'm not too sure, but perhaps this could keep the Byzantine military machine from becoming too powerful due to the higher upkeep costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

I would have thought that their morale would be higher than their earlier version due to them having more confidence in the might of their better arms and improved, tougher and more re-enforced armour. May I suggest that their morale be increased to a higher level - perhaps simply normal morale, similar to that of their predecessors. I apologies for making so many suggestions, yet I find that, since they have lower morale, that it makes for a few nasty instant-rout battles - since they are often the main force and backbone of my front-line fighting armies. I also feel the same about the trained Byzantine Infantry - I find it quite odd that their morale is quite low even though they are a reasonably good fighting force otherwise. Since their forces are often the mainline of the almighty Byzantine military machine, also often resulting in a much higher battle speed, may I also suggest an increase in their morale to a higher level. May I suggest "Good Morale" would be a better level for them due to their good training and larger amounts of discipline than most units. Thanks!

---

The morale decrease is in the name of game balance. Basically Feudal Sergeants can expect to die quickly when under fire or attacked by sword infantry due to their lower armour, so they get a +2 point morale bonus to make up for this. Chivalric Sergeants have this bonus removed due to their much better better armour and defence stats and slightly better melee. Personally I think they're balanced enough as is. When it comes to Byzantine Infantry I both agree and disagree with your points. Byzantine Infantry are an inferior version of FMAA. The main difference is that BI are disciplined. They should perhaps have higher morale, but the problem with this, is the inbuilt Byzantine faction leader's starting +2 influence and +1 command bonus. This gives the Byzantine much better general over all and so the morale deficiency is not so much of an issue. Also the morale bonuses can have the nasty effect of producing killer unroutable lunatics. With the morale bonuses from churches etc, valour bonuses from the general and master buildings, it can get a bit over the top. This is why we have to be cautious when adding morale bonuses. For weaker units yes, and for flankers such as Ghazi, suicidal morale is a vital part of their makeup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

BTW, didn't somebody mention something about transforming the Militia line of buildings into a barracks for the Byzantines. May I suggest that, if you were to accept this idea, that this could be the pre-requirement for all of the higher quality Byzantine Units that would be historically trained and disciplined units such as Byzantine Infantry or those Royal Guard Axemen type troops. Perhaps units that require the barracks line could have slightly better statistics, but be a little bit more expensive in terms of both training costs and upkeep costs. I'm not too sure, but perhaps this could keep the Byzantine military machine from becoming too powerful due to the higher upkeep costs.

---

Yes this is all in the pipeline. I am going to add the muster field from VI to the base level of the town watch line of the tech tree to create 5 levels of barracks. The first will be bound to the fort, the next two to the keep and the last two to the castle. All of these will form the dependencies for most units (the training facilities). They will also provide the valour bonus at master Level, instead of the weaponsmith. (valour should come from exceptional training not an exceptional bit of equipment). The weaponsmiths will become the necessary equipment makers for all units. They will also produce a small income, Armourers and Swordsmiths producing the most, with blacksmiths, spearmakers and bowyers producing somewhat less.

A quick update. After spending an age trying to find that bug yesterday, I finally got something done. I have decided to rename the Urban Militia and Militia Sergeants as Outremer Militia, the first being the early period version and the second being the late. They can now only be trained by the catholics in the crusader states. Both depend on nothing but the first town watch, for now, but this may change when the dependencies are re-done (there will be a thread on this at some point). This naming is by no means final but the removal of their general availability is.

Suggestions for the Moorish appearance muslim UM and MS welcome. They, if used at all, will be divided into separate units. Both are identical info pics, except for the pose, and that the MS version has a few feathers in his cap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II
A quick update. After spending an age trying to find that bug yesterday, I finally got something done. I have decided to rename the Urban Militia and Militia Sergeants as Outremer Militia, the first being the early period version and the second being the late. They can now only be trained by the catholics in the crusader states. Both depend on nothing but the first town watch, for now, but this may change when the dependencies are re-done (there will be a thread on this at some point). This naming is by no means final but the removal of their general availability is.

---

Have their stats changed? Are the UM available in the High Era, when they'll get the most use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II
Suggestions for the Moorish appearance muslim UM and MS welcome. They, if used at all, will be divided into separate units. Both are identical info pics, except for the pose, and that the MS version has a few feathers in his cap.

---

They cold be the Moorish version of Axemen. More specifically so, they could be for the Tiafa kingdoms, considering thier adoption of christian arms. Then the actual Almohads could have the Ghazis and other muslim fanatics, factoring in accuracy, that would suit them. Dunno, you have the final say.

I don't know if this is the place to put this, but as of right now my posting may become very erratic. I took a small vacation only to come back and find myself robbed. Not the most pleasant experiance I can tell you. Right now I am using a library computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Have their stats changed? Are the UM available in the High Era, when they'll get the most use?

---

Stats, unchanged, UM are early only MS are the high/late equivalent. It will be a kind of upgrade, as I don't see the need for two units that perform the same function.

UM:
c4 a2 d-1 a1 m0

MS:
c4 a2 d3 a3 m0

The difference is only in the defence, and the armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

They cold be the Moorish version of Axemen. More specifically so, they could be for the Tiafa kingdoms, considering thier adoption of christian arms. Then the actual Almohads could have the Ghazis and other muslim fanatics, factoring in accuracy, that would suit them. Dunno, you have the final say.

---

They would be Taifa / al-Andalus units. We already have Andalusian Infantry (formerly AUM) so perhaps Andalusian Militia? Early and High/Late versions equal to the Early and High/Late Outremer Militias?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

I don't know if this is the place to put this, but as of right now my posting may become very erratic. I took a small vacation only to come back and find myself robbed. Not the most pleasant experiance I can tell you. Right now I am using a library computer.

---

I'm truly sorry to hear that, and you have my deepest sympathies. I've been a victim I've crime myself, only last year when I was beaten up and robbed in the street so I can sympathise with you. I hope you can get everything back to normal and recover quickly. Your presence will also be sorely missed here if you are posting less.

Hoping that the "craven whore's sons" are brought to justice.

Best regards

Cambyses II

:stwmean:

Thanks for your sympathies Cambyses II. I hope to get back on the ball with this very soon.