On IGN
http://pc.ign.com/articles/735/735311p1.html
:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
Printable View
On IGN
http://pc.ign.com/articles/735/735311p1.html
:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
Wow they have a great unit roster, looks like theyll be fun to play!
Heres just a few!!
Sword and Buckler Men
Dismounted Broken Lances
Halberd Militia
Pavise Crossbowmen
Sicilian Muslim Archers
Hand Gunners
Norman Knights
Knights Templar & Hospitaller
Ribault & Mortar!!
Cool!
Of all the factions they could have previewed...they picked the Sicilians.:no:
"The crossbow is an excellent weapon for the militiaman, being easy to use, although slow to reload. These men carry a large pavise shield to give them some protection while reloading. Being relatively wealthy townsfolk, they can also afford decent armour. A certain number of militia can be maintained in a city for free."
Did anyone else notice this? Hopefully the AI takes advantage of this feature to ensure it doesn't get caught with skeleton garrisons.
Sword and buckler men sound interesting. Perhaps they have bonus against pike formations.
Yes, I found that interesting. Looks like CA may have heeded our requests that towns get a certain amount of free militia units. Happy day!Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
In a way, I think the most interesting unit was the Muslim Archers. I'm not sure how historically accurate they were, but it's nice to see CA throw a nod to how the different peoples of Sicily lived in relative peace. A pretty good preview overall.
Indeed, free militia as long as they stay in city should be great & assuming the campaign AI can handle the concept :idea2:
Look, I think you guys are worrying wayyy to much. This game has been through it's rounds, and tested, it's just doing some final testing now. They've done enough city attacks from all videos, and I have yet to see a unmanned town, so i'm sure comp will know to keep free units and extra and what not in there castle.:juggle2:
As opposed to all those videos of RTW with empty cities huh? :inquisitive:
haha Look my only point is I rarely ran into a empty city in RTW. However I did see videos of rome total war of like 100 v 100. In every MTW video i've seen with a castle invasion it looks like a thousand against a thousand easy.
I'm just sayin have some faith in developers. :balloon2:
Hmm pretty nice unit roster with very defensible position on the map. Sicilians look pretty good to me, unless the AI learns to use ships that is :)
Nice looking units, though the sword of the sword and buckler men looks a bit narrow for a war blade, even a cut and thrust type sword.
Crazed Rabbit
muslim archers are spot on, and were considered among the better archer troops awailable in the medieval world.
one question, how can they field dismounted italian MAAs without being able to field the mounte ones?
Hey if Italian militia are in, maybe Flemish militia are in to. (I really hope so)
ign just released new vid about sicily, ooooohhhhhhhhh new faction. well at least they look great but the flag's not! 3 legs and a head?!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=69670
here you are m8
looks pretty good tho
You can find the article here:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/735/735311p1.html
Really nice information and the sweetest bit come right in the text about the Pavise Crossbowmen:
I just have to love CA for that. Their new recruitment system rules supreme! Can't wait for the game.Quote:
A certain number of militia can be maintained in a city for free.
Cheers!
Edit
Ituralde
Edit: :oops: And here's me posting in the first post he sees something that has already been posted in the other thread. Just ignore this please! :wall:
Interesting that they only get arquebusiers. I guess some Catholic factions will have to make do without being able to train musketeers, although they will probably be available as mercenaries. Also the organ gun ought to even the score a bit.
I have a hunch that the faction previews do not exhaustively list all the units available to a faction, although I could be wrong. Dismounted MAA may be what you get from mounted mailed knights, so there may be a dismounted chivalric type unit that the preview does not show. Or maybe CA are reserving that for the English, who are supposed to have strong infantry (the continentals being modelled as too proud to dismount).
I was very interested in the mention of armour upgrades. It sounds like instead of +1 armour, you will get + plate armour or something. Which would make a lot more sense. But I am curious - what's the difference between plate armour and Gothic armour (mentioned with the Chivalric knights)? I would distinguish full mail, transitional armour (coat of plates etc) and full plate - ie what we had in MTW with feudal, chivalric and Gothic knights. Are CA using "plate armour" to mean transitional armour - some plate and some mail, with Gothic meaning full plate? Or is there really a distinction between full plate and Gothic armour?
Historically, Muslim warriors were a staple of Sicilian armies at least under Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1194-1250). He conquered the last pockets of Muslim resistance in Sicily proper and shipped most of the population to Apulia (on the Adriatic, the "heel" of the Italian boot). They were then formed into several colonies in which they could perform their religion and culture freely and even built some cities (of which nothing is left nowadays, unfortunately). Muslim eunuchs guarded Frederick's concubines, as he had a court much like that of an Oriental potentate, and they also formed his personal bodyguard. Furthermore, Frederick recruited thousands of Muslim warriors as a kind of standing army that helped him out time and again, because they were unafraid of excommunication (a fate that befell Frederick once or twice...). These Muslim elite troops were feared in Italy, as they were frequently ordered to committ rather gross atrocities - or probably that was papal propaganda. Anyway, Muslims formed the backbone of Sicilian armies for at least twenty years. I have no idea what happened to them after the rather abrupt demise of the Hohenstaufens in 1268, though... Frederick's grandson was captured by the new ruler of Sicily, Charles of Anjou, and decapitated in the great Piazza in Naples.
recruitment of muslems dropped after the swabian defeat, they numbered hundreds rather thn thousands. this probably had to do with them being perceived as a bit too lojal tothe swabians from Charles poin of view and decreasing effectiveness of archers against heavier armor.
Well it looks like a fun faction, small and right in the middle of the action. Do they get a land bridge to Italy?
That little titbit about the no maintanence militia sounds fun too and will greatly help with garrisoning settlements. Also explains why we see so many militia missile units too...
I was wondering the same thing Econ, regarding whether all of the units were listed in the faction previews. Hopefully not, but I guess we will see. As far as Sicily goes, they seem like they are a pleasant suprise on their very protectable island position. I'm also curious to see if they get any exclusive units. Those dismounted Norman Knights look cool.
Actually, I take it back - I just counted the number of units on the Portugese custom battle screen (32+) and it is very close to that in the Sicilian preview (c34). So as Warner Bros says "That's all folks!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Nihilus
Oddly enough, on the topic of free militias, i was thinking about how good itd be if they had it in Total War! This stemmed from reading sharpes prey were the british landed in a danish fishing village, it would make sense to make say one 1/4 of the the population into militamen eh?
Yup, free militias are a great idea. I was wondering how the AI (and I!) would cope with the requirement to garrison city walls for their defenses to work. Also, together with the recruitment pools, it will help foster historical armies - not just maxing out on elites. Additionally, in the medieval period, I suspect most militias did come into play mainly in defending settlements - men-at-arms or other cav and missiles dominated many field armies.
I'm wondering how the introduction of late period units like sword and buckler men will be handled. From a historical point of view one wouldn't expect them to appear until gun powder was developed since (as far as I know) that was the catalyst for the appearance of fast moving infantry in half-armours in many armies.
Also, although strategy purists will accuse me of surrendering to the dark side of "finishing moves" and other flashy animations, I gotta ask, does anyone else think it would be really cool if the sword and buckler men punched people in the face with their shields?
This might be a bit difficult since it actually looks as though they have the buckler strapped to their forearm. Now, I'm no expert on medieval sword fighting, but wasn't a buckler held in the fist?
Either way if you try punching someone in the face with your shield you're opening yourself up to a stomach wound- invariably fatal- it doesn't seem like a fair trade-off, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Im glad they chose to preview an italian faction this time.....wish it was the Venetians though.....
Sicily looks like a fun faction to play, starting off the same way ther scipii did in rtw. One thing I noticed.....didnt the normans make their italian capital in naples not palermo.......i could be wrong im no historian.
Like I said I'm no expert, but weren't bucklers sometimes used as a sort of weapon? I think some even had a spike on them.
Free militias sounds very awesome, much better than finding a city with nothing but a peasant unit inside.
The sicilians look interesting, though I would much rather have seen the venetians. Probably the two are fairly similar.
I hope the sword and buckler men are not called that: I forget the much shorter nomenclature I've seen used: rondellero? or something?
econ21, i remember the fluting of armor being a added technology late in armor making that would be seen in german and italian armorers. the fluting or grooves in the armor tend to make the blade slide off instead of piercing through. adding a little curvature or even ribs tend to give flatter plate armor more strength, sort of like a flying buttress would support a gothic church. i do not want to get too techical, but the overall moment of a cross section gets stronger with ribs. the moment of inertia is an important value which is used to determine the state of stress in a section, to calculate the resistance to buckling, and to determine the amount of deflection in a beam.Quote:
I was very interested in the mention of armour upgrades. It sounds like instead of +1 armour, you will get + plate armour or something. Which would make a lot more sense. But I am curious - what's the difference between plate armour and Gothic armour (mentioned with the Chivalric knights)? I would distinguish full mail, transitional armour (coat of plates etc) and full plate - ie what we had in MTW with feudal, chivalric and Gothic knights. Are CA using "plate armour" to mean transitional armour - some plate and some mail, with Gothic meaning full plate? Or is there really a distinction between full plate and Gothic armour?
here's an armor site with some cross sections:http://www.armourarchive.org/essays/armour_fluting/
On a sidenote.
CA has mentioned that amor and weapon upgrades will be evident on the battlemap.
Anyone seen any screens supporting this?
Yes. You know the berdiche axemen 3d unit preview? Well in the Russian faction preview they appeared much less well armoured so the Berdiche Axemen shown in the 3d unit preview must be a fully upgraded version.
Yeah, the Berdiche axemen, in some of the screenshots they wear mail armour and no face masks and in others (as well as the video) they wear plate armour and face masks.
Are you sure that this isnt just a different body, and head. With the all new unique unit system and all?
"I forget the much shorter nomenclature I've seen used: rondellero? or something?"
I think they are the same type of soldier but by the looks of it there is a similar soldier available to the Spanish and Portugese which is probably somewhat better since they are famous for their so called "rodeleros" (which as far as I know means "shield bearer"). You can see the sword and bucker men, and another similar looking unit in this screenshots. One is smaller and thus probably somewhat elite.
https://img118.imageshack.us/img118/...7499dm1.th.jpg
I think this is them here. Though they look like the sword and buckler men, notice that they all wear plate armour and burgonet helmets (i.e. no morions), and carry a broader sword.
https://img112.imageshack.us/img112/...n005df8.th.jpg
Thats prolly the first thing i'm gonna do when i get the full game
Get a costum battke running with a 3 pieces of different units, all with different armor+weapon upgrades
yes, watch the screenshots (and the movie) where you see them and you will see...Quote:
Yeah, the Berdiche axemen, in some of the screenshots they wear mail armour and no face masks and in others (as well as the video) they wear plate armour and face masks.
There's indeed much difference between some of the screeshots and the berdiche axeman showed in the .com 3d unit previews. I hope this is an actual difference rather than an updated/outdated screenshot. I also hope that all the upgrades will be that striking
I don't think it's outdated/updated see the pictures of the Berdiche axemen from the preview then watch the video that came with the preview. There's quite a difference between those two even though they are the same unit, and the screenshots and videos that came with the preview probably came at about the same time I'd say.
Will, if they're from the same unit.
And one looks heavier/more mordernly armoured then the other guy from the same unit. Armor upgrades wónt be evident then, right?
Or am i not getting you right?
The Berdiche axemen in the 3d unit preview at .com is the final fully upgraded version from the looks of it. The Berdiche axemen in the Russian preview are not upgraded at all by the looks of it. From what i've read/seen so far, it looks like as you get upgrades for the unit, the armour gets gradually better unit it gets to the look of the 3d unit preview Berdiche.
Damn, must have put something wrong, I meant that those pictures and the viedo are evident of the fact armour upgrades will be evident. Sorry if I seemed to argue against you and the point and the point I myself had made earlier.Quote:
Will, if they're from the same unit.
And one looks heavier/more mordernly armoured then the other guy from the same unit. Armor upgrades wónt be evident then, right?
Or am i not getting you right?
so when is the start date? 1080? If so, shouldn't Guiscard be in Dalmatia with a large army, at war with the Byzantines under Alexias Comnenas? Dyrrhachium was in 1081, pretty big battle.
King Robert? The Great Count shouldn't even be dead yet, and Bohemond was still languishing in Taranto...
So, a bit off the mark, this kingdom of Sicily (and what is with the Greek-style flag?). Yet, still, the units look reasonable enough. Although I really don't like this "stuck into the melee" stuff in the description of the Mailed Knights.
Which brings me to the most important element, which recieves little attention in these previews (which are mostly focused on the superficial): the tactical gameplay. It seems that the true behavior of cavalry still escapes CA, going by this latest bit of info -- although it must be said that we can still say little enough about the status of the all-powerful, all-present, all-fantasy cavalry of RTW. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping for a return to the halfway point of MTW.
Sicily looks very fun to play as. I wood muster up an army, send diplomats/assassins/spys and then attack. One cood spend a lot of time bilding forces before making enemies.
Plus if you read the little excerpt it sort of sounds like the pope is your pal currently. I'm sure you could use that to your advantage.
I doubt the pope were the sicilians best mate, actually the Anjouese invasion of Sicily was incited by the pope. that admittedly was much later than 1080, but still..
True, but the Normans were valuable allies to the pope in his struggle with the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV. And anyway, the history of Southern Italy is full of rulers who were first supported by the pope, and later, after becoming too powerfull, hated by his successors...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kourutsu
hey now the underdog factions are interesting too!
The Pope had no love for Robert Guiscard de Hauteville, nor for his kin. Their Normans had destroyed the Pope's (and the Holy Roman Emperor's) army at Civitate. Later, the Pope had -- thanks to the Investiture Controversy with the Holy Roman Emperor -- bequeathed the ducal titles of Calabria and Apulia to the Guiscard, and also that of Sicily (empty, of course, until conquered).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus
The alliance was ever fickle. The Guiscard attacked Benevento, a Papal fief, in 1080, but with the Holy Roman Emperor breathing down his neck the Pope relented. Still later, after his victory at Dyrrachium (1081), Robert was forced to break off his advance on Alexius Comnenus in Constantinople to come and save the Pope from Henry, the Holy Roman Emperor. He then saved the Pope from a mob whipped up by the secular leaders of Rome -- quite cunningly (Guiscard means cunning) securing that Pope's allegiance forever.
He died in 1085, leaving the realm to his son Roger Borsa, oft called weak-willed or even weak-minded, while truth be told the man really had little grace in dealing with ambitious vassals (such as his half-brother Bohemond), who was invested in 1089 at last as Duke of Apulia and Sicily, leaving Robert's brother, Roger the Great Count (from whom the great King Roger of Sicily descended) as well as his son by his first wife, Bohemond (later Prince of Antioch) as rebellious vassals -- Bohemond trying to seize the realm for himself, but eventually relenting (hence the belated investiture) after the Pope mediated between him and his half-brother and Roger Borsa handing the Calabrian and Tarantene titles to him.
So, what we should have here is a rather interesting situation at the start of the game. We have a realm, forged by a strong man's will but now led by a lesser man's, who is basically dependant on the support of his uncle on Sicily. Moreover, he's just lost a third of his realm to an ambitious and forceful half-brother who only lost his claim to the realm because his father chose to pursue a political marriage with a local Lombard house. Could make for some interesting scenarios, trying to put this back on its feet -- if CA had payed attention to the possibility (note: this is all based on the assumption that the game starts in 1089; 1081 or 1087 would be even more interesting).
EDIT: Ah, I see now, 1080. Interesting, interesting, the Guiscard still alive and yet to clash with Alexius, but well into preparing his invasion... too bad CA has mistaken 1080 for 1130 and has put Roger II, unborn, on a throne.
By the way... "A sword for every Lord" sounds better.
Finally, the Sicilians are no "underdog faction". The Guiscard brought Alexius almost to his knees were it not for Henry IV and his lay investiture, and Roger II was a cultured, able, and above all powerful ruler, preceding Frederick II (his descendant) by well over fifty years.
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
I have to concur with you, The Wizard, as you are obviously more proficient in Sicilian history then I am: for some reason I was of the impression that Guiscard meant Iron Fist (no idea where I got that from), but you are probably right. Still it seems to be quite correct for Sicily to have a good relation with the pope, as the Sicilians were his allies against the HRE.
Anyway, Sicily looks definately interesting: a strong defensible position with quick acces to most 'wealthy' areas of the map, being able to attack both the HRE, the Byzantines and the Muslims to the south. Certainly no underdog.
they don't start far away from rome so i could easly kil the pope :idea2:
If you have ever played MTW, you will know that is a really bad idea. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by kiebop
Sicilians looks great :2thumbsup:
The Norman Knights are... O, how to say... Awesome!
One of Robert Guiscard's older brothers, the first to lead the Normans in Southern Italy to prominence, was called Iron-Arm. This was William de Hauteville.Quote:
I was of the impression that Guiscard meant Iron Fist (no idea where I got that from)
Let me note one thing on CA's history concerning Sicily, however: this is a whole new ballgame when you consider the Sicilians in MTW. Back then, when I first laid eyes on it, I thought it was indigenously led. I was one step short of wondering where the Corleones were ~;)
Naples was under Byzantine control until 1139. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by IGN
Why is that? [keep in mind rome came out three weeks after i bought medieval, so ive hardly played at all] when playing medieval it never actually crossed my mind to invade the papal states as i wanted crusade missions . Does the pope turn all the catholic factions against you or something? (I really hope not because i plan on using the venetians and the papacy's right in my way)Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The pope would re-emerge every 5 years or soQuote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAgustus
With huuuuge elite armies
Yup, killing the Pope is rather like not pushing the button in the TV series Lost.
I hope it has similarly dramatic consequences in M2TW. (One area where I would trade realism for gameplay and sheer fun).