Russian Units

I want say something about russian units.
First sorry for my bad english.

I think that many russian units and some other things in M2TW are not correct because:


1. Spearmilitia

Why russian spearunits dont have a bonus against cavalry but "all" other nations or most of them like poland have a bonus.


Plz, read this:

Quote:

---

After Russia had been invaded by the crusading Teutonic Knights, the Novgorod authorities sent for Alexander. In spring of 1241 he returned from his exile, gathered an army, and drove out the invaders. Alexander and his men stood up against the Teutonic cavalry led by the Magister of the Order, Hermann, brother of Albert of Buxhoeveden. Nevsky faced the enemy on the ice of the Chudskoye Lake and crushed the Teutonic Knights during the Battle on Lake Peipus on April 5, 1242. German attempts to invade Russia were effectively stopped for many centuries to come.


Monument in St. Petersburg.Alexander’s victory was a significant event in the history of the Middle Ages. Russian foot soldiers had surrounded and defeated an army of knights, mounted on horseback and clad in thick armor, long before Western Europeans learned how foot soldiers could prevail over mounted knights.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nevsky

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_Lake_Peipus


Alexander Nevsky used Militia units (like Spearmiltia in the Game) from Novgorod and his Druzhina to beat the Teutonic Knights.

So why russian units (spearmilitia) didnt get in M2TW a bonus against cavalry but most of all other nations???



2. Druzhina and Boyars

Quote:

---

A druzhina was paid by a knyaz, and received a share of military loot.
...

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina

Some of them were also bodyguards.


Why are this professional soldiers in M2TW useless, perhaps Teutonic Knights should be better because of more armour but better or same as the other knights like feudalknights.

In the game Boyars have better defence with 15 and are more useful as Druzhina (defence only 14), charge is by Druzhina a little bit better but Boyars throw missiles and druzhina not.. So you dont need Druzhinas (i think the cost also more) but they were the most professional russian units at the time!

Boyars or Boyars sons use in MTW Bows and russian but now in M2TW the throw spears or something, i have never heard something about that. I think Boyars should get their Bows back or the M2TW team should explain why now they throw spears perhaps they read that in historical books or so...

If we watch Boyars and polish knights, i ask me what did polish Cavalry does at 1080 to have so better stats, Boyars have defence 15 and polish knights (or whatever) have 17. We talk about 1080... and not about 1580 and polish Hussars!
Perhaps its o.k. to let Boyars at 15 but Drushina as shocktroop in the game should have defence of 17 too. If not, then they are useless for the russian player cause you better use Boyars with same or more success.



3. Unmounted Druzhina and Boyars.

That units have the same stats!
Unmounted Boyars dont throw anything but with horse they throw missiles why is it so?
Why russian player should need two same units?

Why western knights get better defence if unmounted and russian unmounted Druzhina and Boyars dont?

Unmounted Boyars should be something like unmounted dvor and unmounted Dvor a bit better because a later unit (unm.Dvor 11-11-17 and unm.Boyars 10-10-15 or so...). That would make sense.




4. Kazakhen

Later in the game you get Cossacks, i think its o.k., but in early game they are Kazakhen but at 1080 Kiever-Rus didnt use Kazakhen or know something about them or Kazakhstan and so on. I think its historical not correct.

Kiever-Rus did know Polovci/Cumans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumans
http://www.deremilitari.org/resource...nchronicle.htm

Most of th time the Russians fight against them but sometimes some Prince/Knjaz take them as mercenary.

So I dont understand why in M2TW the russian player get Kazakhen.:inquisitive: :dizzy2:

Russians didnt have light Cavalry with Bows in the time of Kievan-Rus only armoured Cavalry with Bows(in MTW they were represent as Boyars) so Russians never made raides as Mongols or Cumans or Timurids and so on.


O.K., now i use the Mongol Raids as russian player and destroy all my enemies but its historical not correct.



5. Overall-Units

M2TW give us a wrong feeling of Kiever-Rus, more as Mongols... but it should be more perhaps as slavic-varyag-byzantin feeling.

In MTW the maker-crew made only a few russian units and now in m2TW they didnt really think about russian units too, more its total wrong feeling now.:embarassed:


6. Cities/Regions

In Kievan-Rus was Kiev a capital so why we start with Novgorod?
What search poland near Kiev if historical they didnt have Halych/Galicia, that was Russian City.
Why is Kiev so poor and in the hole ukraine is only one City (Kiev)? Historical they were more than this, please watch the map:


http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/kievan_rus_map2.gif


M2TW not reperesent russian cities or give some to poland or something.:thumbsdown:

They are big territories with more than only little towns.
Galicia, Volinya, Turov, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Novgorod Seversk.
What do Galicia (Halych) in the polakish faction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine

They only could steal Galicia after Mongol Invasion and only at 14th Century. So im sorry but wtf?


I think M2TW crew should think about that historical things, there are some russians who spend their money for the game too and perhaps you all want also real historical period and not fantasy because CA dont want look at the historical maps.


7. Castles and Cities

Kievan-Rus dont use Castles as most western factions, Kievan-Rus based on towns, people who dont live in the towns dont pay taxes, nobody ever registerd them until russians have to pay money to mongols after their invasion. Peasants were free until 1497 unlike in west, what do slavery in Kievan-Rus as ressource?

Quote:

---

The legal code of Ivan III of Russia, Sudebnik (1497), strengthened the dependency of peasants, statewise, and restricted their mobility. The Russians persistently battled against the successor states of the Golden Horde, chiefly the Khanate of Crimea. Tens of thousand of noblemen protected the southern borderland--a heavy burden for the state--which slowed its social and economic development and expanded the taxation of peasantry.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_serfdom

O.K. the game is so that ruussians have to build their units in castles as western factions but Boayrs lived in Cities/Towns and not in Castles like western nobles. So Boyars came from town and Druzhina from castle.




It would be good if people from M2TW-Crew think about that and make a patch with some corrections, in MTW they made only few russian units and corrected that a bit with viking Invasion i think...

personally, i think the Russians (or Rus' or whatever) got shafted unit selection wise.

fighting with them is like using a watered down version of the Byzantines.

I agree with the orignal poster. The russian unit roster is good, but i dont think its historical because the russians DIDENT fight like the mongols, but nor did they fight like the westerners as far as unit composition, training etc. The problem is the way you learn to fight with the russians isent quite how it really should be (or was). so some tweeking is in order. I only hope someone from the total realism team reads this and keeps it in mind. Also why boyers dont have bows is beyond me. mabye they wanted to make them more effective and used as a "shock" troop but wanted to include there ranged ablities also. who knows.

Points 6 and 7 seem to be unfair criticisms. If you read the description for the Russians it does justify why they begin with Novgorod and not Kiev - it seems a little weak, but at least the reasoning is there. As for the cities vs. castles, the reason for having castles is because that's the way the game has been set up, and it makes no sense to change that for a single faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukasa

Points 6 and 7 seem to be unfair criticisms. If you read the description for the Russians it does justify why they begin with Novgorod and not Kiev - it seems a little weak, but at least the reasoning is there. As for the cities vs. castles, the reason for having castles is because that's the way the game has been set up, and it makes no sense to change that for a single faction.

---

Then explain why egyptans can build mamluk cav, arab cav, there 2 handed axe men, scracens and halberders all at the large or huge city level relativly early. Clearly the OP has some valid points about being able to recruit some units at the city level.

Bear in mind as you're reading this that I know absolutely nothing about Russian history or culture whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

1. Spearmilitia

Why russian spearunits dont have a bonus against cavalry but "all" other nations or most of them like poland have a bonus.

---

That much is a pet peeve of mine, and not only regarding the Rus. Basic urban and spear militias have the anti cav trait or not, almost randomly, across the board. It's not even a cutlure thing, because even among western factions, some spear militias have it and some don't.


2. Druzhina and Boyars


Why are this professional soldiers in M2TW useless, perhaps Teutonic Knights should be better because of more armour but better or same as the other knights like feudalknights.

In the game Boyars have better defence with 15 and are more useful as Druzhina (defence only 14), charge is by Druzhina a little bit better but Boyars throw missiles and druzhina not.. So you dont need Druzhinas (i think the cost also more) but they were the most professional russian units at the time!

Do not let yourself be fooled by the numbers : Druzhinas are armor piercing, boyars are not. All armor-piercing units have reduced attack scores, but that's because armor-piercing actually HALVES the enemy's armor stat. So, facing Druzhina cavalry, a western knight unit is not 10/16 anymore but 10/12ish (heavy mail = 8 armor , so halving that equals -4 defense). Teutonics are 13/16 IIRC, so that's 13/12 vs 10/14, slight advantage to the Teutonics but not by much. A Nevsky-like general on your side will definitely even things out :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Boyars or Boyars sons use in MTW Bows and russian but now in M2TW the throw spears or something, i have never heard something about that. I think Boyars should get their Bows back or the M2TW team should explain why now they throw spears perhaps they read that in historical books or so...

If we watch Boyars and polish knights, i ask me what did polish Cavalry does at 1080 to have so better stats, Boyars have defence 15 and polish knights (or whatever) have 17. We talk about 1080... and not about 1580 and polish Hussars!

---

I guess it's all a game balance/diversity thing. I assume boyars don't cost as much as Polish nobles in either buying price or upkeep to compensate for their inferior stats. Also, bow-wielding Boyars would probably be redundant with Khazars and Cossacks, so giving javelins to Boyars was probably a gamey, if not historical, move from CA to give the Russian player more tactical options.

Quote:

---

3. Unmounted Druzhina and Boyars.

That units have the same stats!
Unmounted Boyars dont throw anything but with horse they throw missiles why is it so?
Why russian player should need two same units?

---

Dismounted Druzhina are armor-piercing. That's a huge, huge huge huge bonus, as mentionned earlier. Boyars can shoot, Druzhina are better at melee. Once again, maybe not true to history, but as far as the game is concerned, it gives more options to the player.

And once again, although they may be a bit inferior to the equivalent christian units, I believe the Russian ones are cheaper, so you can have more and even things out.

Quote:

---

4. Kazakhen

Later in the game you get Cossacks, i think its o.k., but in early game they are Kazakhen but at 1080 Kiever-Rus didnt use Kazakhen or know something about them or Kazakhstan and so on.

Russians didnt have light Cavalry with Bows in the time of Kievan-Rus only armoured Cavalry with Bows(in MTW they were represent as Boyars) so Russians never made raides as Mongols or Cumans or Timurids and so on.

---

Again, that's game logic taking over history. Having only one type of horse-archers (heavily armoured Boyars) wouldn't be fun for the player, and besides, they needed *some* units to fill the gap between Motte and Stone Castle. They chose the Khazaks over, say, light spear cav, because it was culturally relevant and interesting. CA has always chosen fun over pure history.

Besides, while the early Russian civilization never used them in their regular army, I'm confident the early Kazakhs/Cumans did raid their neighbours on their own (even if they weren't under orders from the Rus), so using them that way is probably historical ?

Quote:

---

6. Cities/Regions

In Kievan-Rus was Kiev a capital so why we start with Novgorod?
What search poland near Kiev if historical they didnt have Halych/Galicia, that was Russian City.
Why is Kiev so poor and in the hole ukraine is only one City (Kiev)? Historical they were more than this, please watch the map:


http://www.uncp.edu/home/rwb/kievan_rus_map2.gif


M2TW not reperesent russian cities or give some to poland or something.:thumbsdown:

They are big territories with more than only little towns.
Galicia, Volinya, Turov, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Novgorod Seversk.
What do Galicia (Halych) in the polakish faction?

---

Again, I believe that's a game > history thing. They wanted to give western factions a hard time in conquering Russia, because historically western powers have always failed in that regard (Napoleon, Hitler, and whoever was unlucky enough to awaken Alexander Nevsky ;) ). Since western armies rely as much on infantry as they do on cavalry, and since russian armies as they are in the game are mostly cav heavy, leaving much empty space between Russian settlements gave the native Rus the advantage.

Besides, what you say can also be applied to each and every region of the map. Why choose Rennes as the city representing Britanny when Brest, Quimper and St Malo were just as significant culturally and tactically ? Why only Marrakech + Algiers in North Africa when there were so many local powers back then ? Hell, why a "Moors" faction when what it portrays in game were pretty much all independant city states ?

Answer : because it's simpler to handle gamewise. They made compromises with history across the board, I can vouch for that. I'm French myself, and believe you me, 1080 France was nothing like it's portrayed in the game, but then again, Rome was never Brutii + Scipii + Julii either...

Quote:

---

7. Castles and Cities

Kievan-Rus dont use Castles as most western factions, Kievan-Rus based on towns, people who dont live in the towns dont pay taxes, nobody ever registerd them until russians have to pay money to mongols after their invasion. Peasants were free until 1497 unlike in west, what do slavery in Kievan-Rus as ressource?

---

Again, it's just the closest thing. You have to understand MTW and M2TW are mostly ethno-centric games. Their focus is on western history, occidental cultures, and how *they* behaved. That's why the western factions were more powerfull than the Muslims were across the board in MTW, and that is also why western factions' technology goes further than orthodox and muslim ones do in M2TW.

If they went historic all the way, they'd have to make a different game/economy/military system for each civilization.

I myself am somewhat angry that, for example, the Muslim imams gain traits such as "enemy of the heretics" when heresy is SUCH a western concept and totally alien to the Muslim world, or get "monk" retinues when real world Muslim holy men were never conceited enough to "remove themselves from the influence of a corrupt world" ; but the game is made by and focused on occidental culture, so... just accept it's not going to be perfect ?

Or, since RTW (and M2TW when we get the unpacker) is a very very free and open game, just mod the game the way it ought to be according to you :sweatdrop:

1.Some spearmen units are mean't to be better than others.

2.The Druz have an AP bonus due to their axes. Which means they have more attacking power versus anything with armour. Also Boyars have javelins for varity more than anything. Instead of mailed knights the Poles Hungarians and Russians first noble unit is ranged. But only the Hungarian one is a HA (as they get no more HA after that). The Russians get 2 more, and the Poles are more western leaning.

3.The Druz AP bonus is key here too. And they are cheaper to maintain.

4.Your putting way way way too much stock in the name alone. I larned with TW to never put much stock in names. Light raider HA are common for eastern factions. The name doesn't matter overmuch. For paly ballance the Russians need them. They probably chose Kazakh cause it was eastern sounding and easy to say. Cuman is almost dirty sounding (sounds strange ut it's a concern for rating purposes) and the Russian form of Cuman is too hard to pronounce.

5.And you've just made your biggest mistake right here. This isn't Kiev Rus your playing. Or Novgorod for that matter. It's the Russians, as a cultural/ethnic group. Not 1 Russian princely domain but all that existed between 1080 and 1530. Look at it as if your playing Kiev, Novgord, Muskovy, Smolensk, etc at once. CA has always done this made factions out of a cultural groups (this was much more common in RTW with the barbarian factions) when you have a cloud of small states with more or less the same military and culture. And there is no point (game play wise) in splitting them up.

6.Again not Kievan Rus your playing. Also the Provinces are almost exactly like MTW. And there is a set limit to how many you can have. So areas that had more fighting over them have more provinces. Like the Levant, Iberia, France, and Northern Italy. The steppes in M2TW are a lot better than in RTW. More provinces and they are easier to get to.

7.The tech tree is fairly standarized it would be very unballanced for the Russians to not have castles. Hell the Milanese and Venecians need to use castles when historically they never would have.

Do the Polish nobles have shields and the Boyars not? That might explain why they have higher total defense. My Gendarmes in advanced plate have defense 15 compared to upgraded Chivalrics with defense 18 due to their +4 for shield and slightly higher defense value. This is also why Gothic Knights are a little underpowered as well, I believe. The improved armor does not offset the loss of the shield. In MTW shield bonuses got progressively lower the more armor the unit had. In MTW you always get the full bonus for your type of shield.

IMO, the game balancing in eastern europe is flawed.
In the first medieval, CA made Poland a rather weak faction. It seems taht this time around, they wanted to beef them up somewhat and successfuly accopmlished that. However, they did not take into account the Russians (and the fact that Poland and Russia are the major players in the game's eastern regions untill the Mongols arrive) and did not make the Russians as strong as the poles. In every campaign, Poland (because of its unrealistically strong position = 2 starting provinces to the russians' 1) steamrolls the rebels to its east and continues to capture Kiev, the Crimea and Kazar every time. This would be most certainly OK of it happened occasionally, but not EVERY TIME. Kievan Rus (or any other Rus for that matter) was never weak enough for the Poles to just walk over them, besides the Poles had more pressing concerns in the west and weren't interested in eastwards expansion until after M2. Lars, lets assume you're right and the Russians in M2 are all the people of the Rus culture - would it not make sense to shift the starting postion somewhat then - say Kiev (which was the major administrative, military and cultural centre at the game's start).

Unit wise, I also feel the Russians have been neglected somewhat. Poland and Hungary get a much better selection of more powerful cavalry - fine IF the spear infantry can realistically hold up against them. As the OP mentions, the Russian militia spearmen don't even have a lsight anti-cavalry bonus! That is neither historically accurate or good well balanced!

Generally, the feeling I get from the game is that the Russians are portrayed as weaker than Poland, Hungary and Denmark. In every campaign, Poland becomes a super power that is equal to or greater in strength than Russia - this is simply not true! (like I said, I don't mind if that happens once in a while, but not EVERY time).

pheew, I think I'll stop ranting for a minute now. I stand by the above, but having said that, this is still a great game and immensely enjoyable - well done CA, despite the Russians its still a good game!

I don't understand the problem with druzhinas, I really liked them and preferred them over boyars, the only unit that didn't come up to my expectations were thoseberdiche guys, I got the impression that dismounted druzhinas are better. Fighting the poles with russia was not a big problem and I also beat some mongols so...
About historical accuracy, I cannot say a lot, except that it's a game and if there are small inacurracies, I don't mind that.

I agree with Suvorov in most details.

I am extremely disappointed in the spear militia and the dismounted cavalry options.

For the game, I think the Novgorod starting position was probably the best choice considering the eventual massive Mongol and Timurid incursions. It gives the Russians a better chance to expand. Perhaps it would have been better to call them the Novgorods. Starting the faction, whatever it is called, in Kiev would place them into earlier competition with both the Polish and the Hungarians before having a chance to expand and build up armies.

When we get some major faction modding going after the patch and the arrival of the unpacker, I suspect someone will give the Russians a second province to balance them out a bit. Then it might be possible to have both Rus and the independent Republic of Novgorod at the same time and make it work.

Modding is going to be the key here. Luckily, we're in the right place. :wink:

As an aside, the restored version with subtitles of the wonderful 1938 black and white Russian film, Alexander Nevsky has been showing on the Independent Film Channel lately for those who have cable and that channel. It is a masterpiece and of particular interest to MTW players, with its scenes talking about dealing with the heavily armored "Master" and his "Germans" (the Teutonic Knights) and their dreaded wedge cavalry charge. Wonderful stuff. MTW players should watch it if they can.

I agree totally, suvorov.

Your English and presentation is just great. I sure got the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

1.Some spearmen units are mean't to be better than others.

---

Have you read about the battle against Teutonic Knights i posted?
Why shoud russian spearmen be worst if militia from Novgorod hold the Knights. And some other Faction had never did the same but have such a bonus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

2.The Druz have an AP bonus due to their axes. Which means they have more attacking power versus anything with armour. Also Boyars have javelins for varity more than anything. Instead of mailed knights the Poles Hungarians and Russians first noble unit is ranged. But only the Hungarian one is a HA (as they get no more HA after that). The Russians get 2 more, and the Poles are more western leaning.

---

Druzhina have only unmounted these bonus but boyars have it too. On horse here no bonus for Druzhina, i checked it, perhaps in ur game its other as in my...
Are you really sure about it?

Russians are not ranged as Druzhina only as Boyars and polish nobles are much better. Druzhina have nothing its only the first step of knights. After that there are no more modern shockunits until the Zar...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

3.The Druz AP bonus is key here too. And they are cheaper to maintain.

---

Only unmounted have they ap-bonus. On horse nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

4.Your putting way way way too much stock in the name alone. I larned with TW to never put much stock in names. Light raider HA are common for eastern factions. The name doesn't matter overmuch. For paly ballance the Russians need them. They probably chose Kazakh cause it was eastern sounding and easy to say. Cuman is almost dirty sounding (sounds strange ut it's a concern for rating purposes) and the Russian form of Cuman is too hard to pronounce.

---

:laugh4:
But there were no Kazakhs, there are people from Kazakhstan watch on the map, Kievan Rus never see them.
And Russians from Kievan Rus (its the name of the state not only people from Kiev...) dont use light cavalry with bows as regular troops only sometimes 1 or 2 as mecenary the Cumans( most of the time they were the enemy), never made mongol-raids. Russian Faction could need tanks und bombers too but would historical wrong. Perhaps english would need Horsearchers too, so we give them Indians...:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

5.And you've just made your biggest mistake right here. This isn't Kiev Rus your playing. Or Novgorod for that matter. It's the Russians, as a cultural/ethnic group. Not 1 Russian princely domain but all that existed between 1080 and 1530. Look at it as if your playing Kiev, Novgord, Muskovy, Smolensk, etc at once. CA has always done this made factions out of a cultural groups (this was much more common in RTW with the barbarian factions) when you have a cloud of small states with more or less the same military and culture. And there is no point (game play wise) in splitting them up..

---

Its not mistake, the land is named Kievan Rus, there not only people from Kiev, there also people from Novgorod and Moscow and so on. Kievan cause the capital was in Kiev not more. I hope that you understand now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

6.Again not Kievan Rus your playing. Also the Provinces are almost exactly like MTW. And there is a set limit to how many you can have. So areas that had more fighting over them have more provinces. Like the Levant, Iberia, France, and Northern Italy. The steppes in M2TW are a lot better than in RTW. More provinces and they are easier to get to.

---

Again:
There were only that Kievan Rus no other, its the name of the land and not mean only the people from Kiev.
Call it Russia if it helps to understand what im talkig about, but at 1080+... Kiev was the Capital, it was not polish or rebelled or something. Perhaps in M3TW London became rebelled city and the AI always give it to french or scotish faction then you would understand what im saying.

Other thing, Halych is in the game a polish castle with catholian population but it was russian city with orthodox russians and belongs to Kievan Rus(Russia) at these time never to poland. So if we give New Castle or whatever to Turks and make the population to muslims it would be historical wrong in the same way.

About more provinces, if not, then russian cities must be richer because they represent more than one...But now there are less provinces/cities and they are poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

7.The tech tree is fairly standarized it would be very unballanced for the Russians to not have castles. Hell the Milanese and Venecians need to use castles when historically they never would have.

---

Again, Boyars lived in towns not in castles.
In Italy were enough castles so what are you talking about?
http://www.travelwriter.at/about/cas...ly/index.shtml

Egypt produce arabian cavalry in town for example, so why shouldnt russians be able produce Boyars in town too? I dont see standarized or unballance or as you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Have you read about the battle against Teutonic Knights i posted?
Why shoud russian spearmen be worst if militia from Novgorod hold the Knights. And some other Faction had never did the same but have such a bonus?

---

Yes. And Russian spears aren't that sucky. If I had to guess Russian spears lack the anti-cavalry bonus because unlike other factions they get lots of decent infantry early on. Plus CA designed their army to be cavalry based.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Druzhina have only unmounted these bonus but boyars have it too. On horse here no bonus for Druzhina, i checked it, perhaps in ur game its other as in my...
Are you really sure about it?

---

If the unit uses and axe it has the bonus. But since mounted Druzhina use a lance as a primary they AP bonus isn't listed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Russians are not ranged as Druzhina only as Boyars and polish nobles are much better. Druzhina have nothing its only the first step of knights. After that there are no more modern shockunits until the Zar...

---

Don't just go by the stats you see on the unit card. Morale is just as important armour and attack rating. And the card only speaks of it if it's over a certain amount. So who has more morale, Boyars or Polish nobles? (I already know the answer, you don't know). The only way to see which is better is to use both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Only unmounted have they ap-bonus. On horse nothing.

---

Axes and polearms always have some kind of AP bonus. It only gets listed in the abilities section if it's the primary weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

:laugh4:
But there were no Kazakhs, there are people from Kazakhstan watch on the map, Kievan Rus never see them.
And Russians from Kievan Rus (its the name of the state not only people from Kiev...) dont use light cavalry with bows as regular troops only sometimes 1 or 2 as mecenary the Cumans( most of the time they were the enemy), never made mongol-raids. Russian Faction could need tanks und bombers too but would historical wrong. Perhaps english would need Horsearchers too, so we give them Indians...:inquisitive:

---

Kazak's are there for game ballance. Light and fast raider HA like them are nearly imposible to run down without your own. Most of the near by enemies that the Russians face have them, so the Russians need them. CA also loves to stretch things. If it happened once on a real battlefield and was of marginal use but really neat sounding they will put it in the game and give it to a faction. Hence in RTW you could recruit burning pigs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Its not mistake, the land is named Kievan Rus, there not only people from Kiev, there also people from Novgorod and Moscow and so on. Kievan cause the capital was in Kiev not more. I hope that you understand now.

---

No it is a mistake. The M2TW Russian faction is every Rus state. Kiev was the main city but they were the Rus. Kievan-Rus is like Byzantine empire. Used by scholars to denote Russia before the Mongols and the medieval Eastern Roman empire respectively. Irregardless of whether the actual people at the used that name or not. The Russians aren't the only faction like this. The Egyptians cover 3 seperate dynasties that were almost seperate kingdoms. The Turks are the Seljuks and Ottomans. Both Turkish tribes but who fought in very different fashions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Again:
There were only that Kievan Rus no other, its the name of the land and not mean only the people from Kiev.
Call it Russia if it helps to understand what im talkig about, but at 1080+... Kiev was the Capital, it was not polish or rebelled or something. Perhaps in M3TW London became rebelled city and the AI always give it to french or scotish faction then you would understand what im saying.

---

No it's the name of the period. And the land around Kiev.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Other thing, Halych is in the game a polish castle with catholian population but it was russian city with orthodox russians and belongs to Kievan Rus(Russia) at these time never to poland. So if we give New Castle or whatever to Turks and make the population to muslims it would be historical wrong in the same way.

---

So? Venice starts ruling Dalmatia and Crete. Dalamtia was ruled by Hungary at the time and Crete wasn't captured by the Venecians until after 1204. France stars off without Aquitane or Brittany. Portugal is ruling Navarre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

About more provinces, if not, then russian cities must be richer because they represent more than one...But now there are less provinces/cities and they are poor.

---

No. Russian cities can be rich if you manage them effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Again, Boyars lived in towns not in castles.
In Italy were enough castles so what are you talking about?
http://www.travelwriter.at/about/cas...ly/index.shtml

---

No there are exactly 0 castles on main land Italy. Milan, Genoa, Venice, Florence, Bologna, Rome, and Naples (all the settlements on the main land) are all cities. The only castles are on the islands, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Egypt produce arabian cavalry in town for example, so why shouldnt russians be able produce Boyars in town too? I dont see standarized or unballance or as you said.

---

Egypt and Spain/Portugal get cultural buildings that let them build light cavalry in cities. Plaza del Toro and Horse racing tracks. The Russians get an Iconigraphers studio. And the game is ballanced that cities only recruit militia's and some late period professional units. If it's professional (for the most part), feudal, or aristocratic you train it in a castle.


In the end TW is a game not a sim. Gameplay trumps historical-ness. CA plays fast and loose with historical fact a good deal of the time. In the end it's really fun to play. If the changes bother you that much unistal the game and don't play it until one of the waste of time accuracy mods come along. CA is never going be overly loyal to history. It wuld kill the games fun totally and completely. They know it and I know it. If you cna't accept it, your loss.

If you do read the faction description during your selection of a faction, it is said that the capital of the 'Russians', in the game, is indeed in Kiev, but there is apparently some widespread rebellion or chaotic disorder happening that has forced the monarchy north to Novgorod, where they hope to consolidate their power and push back down towards Kiev again. Historical or not, I have no idea, but this is the explanation given for the whole of Rus being rebel.

Come on Lars, come on, it can't be that you disagree with everything that suvorov says. He does have valid points, when your explanation is mostly around gameplay. I thought that the game originates from the historical positions of factions and then CA introduces inaccuracies that, in their mind, balance the game.

In the case of medieval Russians they have it mostly wrong. So why don't you point out other inaccuracies that you know about other factions. I know they will eventually be considered by a mod and then everyone will be happy.

Anyway, I firmly believe that the TW series would be much more challenging if it moved closer to the historical facts instead of just gameplay issues. But that's my opinion.

Well from my readings unified rule from Kiev is out the widow in 1078. And the Rus states slit into about 7 Principalities, who are theortical vasals of the main Rurik dynasty. My listing is Kiev, Novgorod, Smolensk, Pereyaslavl, Polosk, Chernigrov, and Rostov-Suzdal. With the main line who decend from Rurik "ruling" from Vladimir. CA drops you into Novgorod.

I think, it was Vladimir the Wise (...) from the Rurik dynasty who started the practice of splitting the kingdom into subkingdoms divided among his heirs. This started the process of fragmentation of Russia, so, by the time Mongols arrived 200 years later Russians were an easy pick for them, every city fighting for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Well from my readings unified rule from Kiev is out the widow in 1078. And the Rus states slit into about 7 Principalities, who are theortical vasals of the main Rurik dynasty. My listing is Kiev, Novgorod, Smolensk, Pereyaslavl, Polosk, Chernigrov, and Rostov-Suzdal. With the main line who decend from Rurik "ruling" from Vladimir. CA drops you into Novgorod.

---

From 1078-1093 Kievan Rus was ruled bei Vsevolod I Jaroslavich from Kiev.
Son Monomach was in Chernigov and take 1084 Polosk that was rebelled.
Monomach was the later alone Ruler.
So I dont understand how Kiev should be rebelled at 1080.

http://www.ostu.ru/personal/nikolaev/rus11.html


To your other answers, good morale is descripted in unitcard if there are one.
If u not understand, AP-Bonus is not mentioned and no need cause the game for HCav. based on good charges.

Quote:

---

No it's the name of the period. And the land around Kiev.

---

Sorry, but wtf u talking about?

One other thing, from Russia you can go over land to sweden and no need ships but in the game you need ships, the danes got landbridges to sweden but they in real need ships, the same situation between Afrika and spainish mainland. This and things I and some other Users (as starting with only one province) mentioned before makes russian Faction disadvantaged. So if AI played Russia this land is always little with poor power at same time Poland/Danes and so on are always mighty.:inquisitive:

Its a game, not an interactive history lesson. Compromises have to be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

If u not understand, AP-Bonus is not mentioned and no need cause the game for HCav. based on good charges.

---

That is only true to a point. Of course, if you're charging peasants, druzhina and polish nobles are one and the same - they charge in, destroy the unit, mop up the 10 survivors.

But when using heavy cav to counter heavy cav, or dismounted knights for example, the AP bonus does a world of difference. Which is why Druzhina is better than Boyars or Polish nobles in some situations, they really have two facets : they can run down infantry like good knights, and destroy cav like the Danish Warrior Priests/Gothic Knights do later on. And they do have AP bonus when fighting with their axes, even though it's not listed on their unit card because, as Lars said, it's not their primary weapon.

As to why the Russians start with only one province, I'd agree with Lars that it's a game balance thing. Almost every faction starts with fewer territories than they did in history (and in MTW) to give them more options from the start, instead of having to start wars against factions on turn 1.

The Rus start with only one because they have absolutely no enemies on 3 sides until the Mongols appear and can concentrate on capturing Rebel settlements. Poland starts with two, because they have the HRE and Poland (and the über Danes) right next to them, so they need one castle on top of their capital to build good troops in case one of their neighbours attack early. The Danes start with only one because their early castle troops are much more powerfull than those of their neighbours, so having to siege Hamburg (or lose it to the HRE if they don't move fast enough) slows down their start a bit.

As to the Kazhaks, well, like I said, they needed *something* for the first level of the castle, and the Rus would have been very disadvantaged against the Hungarians and Turks if they didn't have any horse archers before the Boyars (castle level 3 if I'm not mistaken, that's quite late into the game). Besides, if you consider them too ahistorical, just don't use them at all :juggle2:.

Quote:

---

And Russians from Kievan Rus (its the name of the state not only people from Kiev...) dont use light cavalry with bows as regular troops only sometimes 1 or 2 as mecenary the Cumans( most of the time they were the enemy), never made mongol-raids. Russian Faction could need tanks und bombers too but would historical wrong. Perhaps english would need Horsearchers too, so we give them Indians...

---

They gave horsearchers to the French, and believe me, there was never such thing either :sweatdrop:. The Moors have Christian Knights as their main units in the late game, I don't believe the practice was *that* widespread or they had so many Christians fighting for them either, but they need it for game-balance if they are to fight anywhere that is not a desert, and they have to in a long campaign. The Danes get Warrior Priests straight out of a Viking saga if I'm not mistaken (never heard of those, ever) to even things out with Gothic Knights. The Hungarians have fantasy "ninjas" to counter the Turkish hashishims. Heck, the battlefield hashishims themselves are pure fantasy ! Hashishims were sneaky killers infiltrating your camp at night to slit your throat in your sleep, they never participated in any siege or field battle I'm aware of.

So, my point is : it's not just the Rus, all factions have a strong history core, and units from history fringes and things happening once etc... if it can provide for a more balanced gameplay. It's a game, not a history lesson :book:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

That is only true to a point. Of course, if you're charging peasants, druzhina and polish nobles are one and the same - they charge in, destroy the unit, mop up the 10 survivors.

But when using heavy cav to counter heavy cav, or dismounted knights for example, the AP bonus does a world of difference. Which is why Druzhina is better than Boyars or Polish nobles in some situations, they really have two facets : they can run down infantry like good knights, and destroy cav like the Danish Warrior Priests/Gothic Knights do later on. And they do have AP bonus when fighting with their axes, even though it's not listed on their unit card because, as Lars said, it's not their primary weapon.

---

You dont know what you talking about, Druzhina always lose to polish nobles, they take damage before fighting and at fighting they are only on first step of HCav., their moral is less the other Knights, who came from land and never see a battle before. Druzhina is in real like Huscarls a professional unit.
O.K. I play only VH/VH and you perhaps not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

As to why the Russians start with only one province, I'd agree with Lars that it's a game balance thing. Almost every faction starts with fewer territories than they did in history (and in MTW) to give them more options from the start, instead of having to start wars against factions on turn 1.

---

For example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

The Rus start with only one because they have absolutely no enemies on 3 sides until the Mongols appear and can concentrate on capturing Rebel settlements. Poland starts with two, because they have the HRE and Poland (and the über Danes) right next to them, so they need one castle on top of their capital to build good troops in case one of their neighbours attack early. The Danes start with only one because their early castle troops are much more powerfull than those of their neighbours, so having to siege Hamburg (or lose it to the HRE if they don't move fast enough) slows down their start a bit.

---

:laugh4:
Poland and Hungary attack Russia early and are the most Factions hate Russians. You never played any russian campign or only on easy if you dont know it.
Danes have never such territory as Rus, so they start correctly with one province.
but this is not the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

As to the Kazhaks, well, like I said, they needed *something* for the first level of the castle, and the Rus would have been very disadvantaged against the Hungarians and Turks if they didn't have any horse archers before the Boyars (castle level 3 if I'm not mistaken, that's quite late into the game). Besides, if you consider them too ahistorical, just don't use them at all :juggle2:.

---

Why not Elefanfts or Roman Legions?:laugh4:
Im sorry, Rus had own real troops and no need fantasy Kazakhs.

http://www.vzmakh.ru/parabellum/image/n6_s2_p1.jpg
http://www.vzmakh.ru/parabellum/image/n5_s4_p1.jpg
http://www.ivki.ru/svitok/rdivm/images/ratnik.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

They gave horsearchers to the French, and believe me, there was never such thing either :sweatdrop:. The Moors have Christian Knights as their main units in the late game, I don't believe the practice was *that* widespread or they had so many Christians fighting for them either, but they need it for game-balance if they are to fight anywhere that is not a desert, and they have to in a long campaign. The Danes get Warrior Priests straight out of a Viking saga if I'm not mistaken (never heard of those, ever) to even things out with Gothic Knights. The Hungarians have fantasy "ninjas" to counter the Turkish hashishims. Heck, the battlefield hashishims themselves are pure fantasy ! Hashishims were sneaky killers infiltrating your camp at night to slit your throat in your sleep, they never participated in any siege or field battle I'm aware of.

---

French had franch archers in late but the archers losed in battle and french King let them go, cause loosers.
They were christian mercenary by moors or what they represent in game, El Cid was mercanary also by muslims.

The point is that ur ninjas are not ur main troops as hungarian faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

So, my point is : it's not just the Rus, all factions have a strong history core, and units from history fringes and things happening once etc... if it can provide for a more balanced gameplay. It's a game, not a history lesson :book:.

---

Then play warcraft or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

You dont know what you talking about, Druzhina always lose to polish nobles, they take damage before fighting and at fighting they are only on first step of HCav., their moral is less the other Knights, who came from land and never see a battle before. Druzhina is in real like Huscarls a professional unit.
O.K. I play only VH/VH and you perhaps not...

---

I've yet to use Druzhina in my Rus campaigns (M/VH), that much is true.

I'm now in 1106 (1 year/turn) and Poland just betrayed me because I stole Vilnius right in front of their eyes (we had been sieging it together, when the defenders sallied I chose to move away, the Polish were massacred, then I took the castle alone). I can understand that they'd dislike me at that point :laugh4:.

Polish nobles haven't been that much of a problem though, Boyar's sons and Khazaks shooting them in the back are good enough.

Quote:

---

For example?

---

From the start as the Russians you have many options ! You can go SW as fast as you can and take the line of castles there to block Poland and Hungary (Vilnius - Black Sea line). Or you can go W, take Helsinki/Riga, build boats, take Finland and the provinces around it. Or you can go SE, take Moscow, Kiev and the rich cities around the Black Sea, and then invade Turkey. You can also try and play Hungary and Poland against each other through diplomacy while you expand (harder to do in VH campaign, I know).

And what you asked was "which factions have less regions than they did", well : France, Scotland, Moors, Egypt, Byzantium, Hungary, the HRE all have less land in 1080 M2TW than they did in real life, again to give different options and outcomes to campaigns and to make every faction more balanced troops- and money-wise.

Quote:

---

:laugh4:
Poland and Hungary attack Russia early and are the most Factions hate Russians. You never played any russian campign or only on easy if you dont know it.

---

This also has to do with the fact that Russians start without a diplomat and far, far away from the rest of the world. By the time your agents reach their lands, friendships have already been made between the Christian factions. In my campaign I tried to even things out by marrying my princess to the Polish heir, but like I said earlier, I semi-betrayed them afterwards, so that didn't work all that well. Maybe next time I'll try to contact Byzantium first, and give them much money to help them be more of a threat to Hungary.

Quote:

---

Why not Elefanfts or Roman Legions?:laugh4:
Im sorry, Rus had own real troops and no need fantasy Kazakhs.

http://www.vzmakh.ru/parabellum/image/n6_s2_p1.jpg
http://www.vzmakh.ru/parabellum/image/n5_s4_p1.jpg
http://www.ivki.ru/svitok/rdivm/images/ratnik.jpg

---

All of the units in those pictures are in game, aren't they ? The first one is Dvor + spear, bow and crossbow militia. Second is Tsar's Guard. Last one is spearman (the castle type, with upgraded armor).

I really don't see what the problem is. If you don't like Khazaks, don't use them. To me, they're just one more option and one more tactical choice. So we can both be happy :clown:

Quote:

---

French had franch archers in late but the archers losed in battle and french King let them go, cause loosers.

---

Never heard of them.

Quote:

---

They were christian mercenary by moors or what they represent in game, El Cid was mercanary also by muslims.

---

Sure, but like I said, the way they are in the game, they are supposed to be 8/10th of every non-desert Moorish army late in the game, the rest being archers/arquebusiers/generals. The Moors did fight alongside Christians and Christian knights, it is true, but never to that extent !

Quote:

---

The point is that ur ninjas are not ur main troops as hungarian faction.

---

Nor are the Khazaks, unless you want them to be/let them be. You can field excellent armies without them, with only Druzhina + Boyar's Sons + Generals.

And while Dismounted Polish Nobles are a bit better than Russian castle Spearmen, that's not much of a problem because Boyar's Sons have javelins, and Russians can have many many archers early on (since their very first militia unit is Archer Militia).

Quote:

---

Then go play Warcraft

---

I'm not saying history is a bad thing, only that CA games have always been more about gaming, variety and fun than about history. Hence in RTW the flaming pigs, the Egyptian chariots, the head-throwers etc...
I'm sure there will be a M2 Total Realism like there was one for Rome, but RTR, although as true to history as possible, was far from fun IMHO.

:bump:

Come on suvorov!
Still rooting for you mate!
:laugh4:

Quote:

---

O.K. I play only VH/VH and you perhaps not...

---

You can't compare units on VH... If you take two identical units on VH, say Armored Sergeants, and you and the AI both charge into each other in a completely equal way on Very Hard, you will always lose the fight, because the AI troops are automatically made stronger in morale and combat effects when you play VH.

If your Druzhina were to crush Polish Nobles in VH, that would mean they were massively, amazingly better than Polish Nobles.

You have to compare units on Medium, because on Hard and Very Hard the fight is not even, the enemy has bonuses attached.

Quote:

---

You can't compare units on VH... If you take two identical units on VH, say Armored Sergeants, and you and the AI both charge into each other in a completely equal way on Very Hard, you will always lose the fight, because the AI troops are automatically made stronger in morale and combat effects when you play VH.

---

Your wrong, units no longer get bonuses on vh in M2Tw, unlike in RTW.

actually lithuanian cavalry used javelins- the spisa-. cavalry from western russia was heavily influenced by lithuanian tactics. so it's not so bad that boyars are javelin-armed. secondly "black hat" or chernye klobuki horsearchers were very prominent cavalry in russian armies. too bad ca used kazakh as the term to name them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

3. Unmounted Druzhina and Boyars.

That units have the same stats!
Unmounted Boyars dont throw anything but with horse they throw missiles why is it so?
Why russian player should need two same units?

Why western knights get better defence if unmounted and russian unmounted Druzhina and Boyars dont?

Unmounted Boyars should be something like unmounted dvor and unmounted Dvor a bit better because a later unit (unm.Dvor 11-11-17 and unm.Boyars 10-10-15 or so...). That would make sense.



.

---

i am playing a campaign as the russians at the moment and have some sympathy with your points.

this one in particular is just bizzare - surely an error? what is the point of having two identical units, its bloody stupid. it is also boring for the gamer as uint variety makes for a more interesting game. i hope someone will fix this with a mod.

as regards the russians starting with only one city etc i wouldnt say that the russians are too weak. i have found them to be the most difficult faction i have played with so far - but that is a good thing, as they are an enjoyable challenge. on most of my other long campaigns i have completed before the mongols even arrive.
there are two things that make the russians more challenging - no crusades (= cheap top quality mercs). and secondly the distance- it takes you a long time to spread your wings because the distances are large and there are no roads to begin with.

if you are someone who likes to do multiplayer then obvioulsy their unit roster is more of an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

From 1078-1093 Kievan Rus was ruled bei Vsevolod I Jaroslavich from Kiev.
Son Monomach was in Chernigov and take 1084 Polosk that was rebelled.
Monomach was the later alone Ruler.
So I dont understand how Kiev should be rebelled at 1080.

---

It's like this. In 1078 the Rus domain ruled from Kiev fell apart. While the Ruriks at Kiev, and then Vladimir, had the title of Grand Prince/Duke the other Knyaz were nearly independant. It's the same thing that happened with the HRE. CA puts you into the Shoes of the Princes of Novgorod, rather than having something like 7 redundant Rus princes. They chose Novgorod cause the early era Russian faction in MTW was "The people of Novgorod." But really any of the others would have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

To your other answers, good morale is descripted in unitcard if there are one.
If u not understand, AP-Bonus is not mentioned and no need cause the game for HCav. based on good charges.

---

But melee is based on secondary weapon. Now after a charge Heavy cav will switch to their secondary weapon. Which means in any melee a Druzhinas axe is a very important factor as it has an AP bonus. Which is how things would have gone anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suvorov

Sorry, but wtf u talking about?

---

The term Kiev-Rus wasn't used by the people at the time to describ their realm.


Also the Russians do have a spear unit with anti cav bonus. See.

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y2...sianspears.jpg

Castle units, better than 90% of city units.

Yeah, Russian spear militia have no anti-cavalry bonus, but none of the spear militia do! The Russian's spearmen unit has it as pictured above. Also, for the mounted Druzhina, it says on the unit card that it has no anti-armor bonus, but that's because the unit card only lists stats from the unit's primary weapon, which for mounted Druzhina, is a spear. Once the mounted Druzhina switch to their axes, you get the anti-armor bonus. Boyars also have the anti-armor bonus, but because the axe is their secondary, it does not show it on the UC.
I agree with you though about the dismounted versions though. Dismounted Druzhina and Dismounted Boyar's sons are wholly redundant.

Also, I've fought Polish Nobles with Druzhina on a custom battle, and found that it all depends on the charge, and the cavalry bug. I tested on the perfectly flat, clear, field map, on normal difficulty. 3/10 times, the Druzhina lost the fight, but it depended on how orderly their charge was when it impacted, how you ordered the charge, and on the cavalry no-fight bug. Oftentimes, the Druzhina would just ride against the Poles, never using their axes, this was the case on 2/3 of the losses. Another big difference is how you order the charge. When I simply double-clicked on the Poles, the Druzhina lost. However, when I alt-double-clicked on the Poles, the Druzhina won every time, sometimes by quiet a large margin (18-22 men). This is because when you just double-click, it take longer for the Druzhina to switch from their spears to their axes. Alt-double-clicking solves this problem. On the battle where the Druzhina won by the greatest margin (22 men), their charge was perfectly orderly, I used alt-double-click, and the cavalry no-fight bug didn't occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zanderpants

Yeah, Russian spear militia have no anti-cavalry bonus, but none of the spear militia do! The Russian's spearmen unit has it as pictured above. Also, for the mounted Druzhina, it says on the unit card that it has no anti-armor bonus, but that's because the unit card only lists stats from the unit's primary weapon, which for mounted Druzhina, is a spear. Once the mounted Druzhina switch to their axes, you get the anti-armor bonus. Boyars also have the anti-armor bonus, but because the axe is their secondary, it does not show it on the UC.
I agree with you though about the dismounted versions though. Dismounted Druzhina and Dismounted Boyar's sons are wholly redundant.

Also, I've fought Polish Nobles with Druzhina on a custom battle, and found that it all depends on the charge, and the cavalry bug. I tested on the perfectly flat, clear, field map, on normal difficulty. 3/10 times, the Druzhina lost the fight, but it depended on how orderly their charge was when it impacted, how you ordered the charge, and on the cavalry no-fight bug. Oftentimes, the Druzhina would just ride against the Poles, never using their axes, this was the case on 2/3 of the losses. Another big difference is how you order the charge. When I simply double-clicked on the Poles, the Druzhina lost. However, when I alt-double-clicked on the Poles, the Druzhina won every time, sometimes by quiet a large margin (18-22 men). This is because when you just double-click, it take longer for the Druzhina to switch from their spears to their axes. Alt-double-clicking solves this problem. On the battle where the Druzhina won by the greatest margin (22 men), their charge was perfectly orderly, I used alt-double-click, and the cavalry no-fight bug didn't occur.

---

On click make a good/best charge!
The problem in own battle is that AI is buged, often the enemy break their charge and you win. And the problem with polish nobles is that the AI use them often only for throwing spears and not for charge. In campaign there are some other situations. may point with druzhina is that there no updates for them until the Zar-time, no late or middle druzhina or something from 1080 to dont know 1400 in the game the Druzhina use the same armour for example. In Real the armour development was in Kievan Rus too, dont know why CA not noticed that. There should be between Druzhina and Zar Garde(or something) a middle thing like in other nations or druzhina be upgrade a bit because the unit represent some hundret years of Druzhinas...


I have made a little MOd for Russian Faction, as player for Russians or Poland you now can realize some strategic problems they had, no more Poland easily into Asia, no more baltic provinces first for Russians, so Poland Lithuania can live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zanderpants

Yeah, Russian spear militia have no anti-cavalry bonus, but none of the spear militia do!

---

Actually that's not true, and it's been bugging me to no end.

Almost every faction has two types of militia spearmen : "Town/Urban Militia" (sorry, I play the French version so I don't know the exact english term.)
and "Spear Militia".

Town Militia has small round shields, 5/5 stats and no trait whatsoever except "bonus in snow and trees" like most infantry.

Spear Militia is always 5/7, "bonus in snow and trees", but some of them have schiltron+anticav and some don't, almost randomly. The Russian one doesn't, but the exact same Hungarian Spear Militia with the exact same flavor text and the exact same model does. And they both cost the same too AFAIK. It's just weird like that.

@suvorov : I have to apologize for earlier, I hadn't noticed about the unmounted druzhina, in fact I didn't even know there was an unmounted version until far into my Russian campaign (haven't used infantry that much either to tell you the truth).

You are right in saying that Unmounted Druzhina don't have much point compared to Unmounted Boyar's sons. The Rus seem to have the same problem the Moors have with Berbers/Nubians. My best guess would be it's that way so that you can recruit more units of the same general kind, have double the standard cap sort of, but since you can only recruit 3 units per turn per castle at the most, it hardly ever happens that you run out of either...

Actually there is one big difference between foot Druz and foot boyars. Availability. They both come at citadel level, but foot Druz have max 4 and replinish in 2-3 turns, foot boyars have a max of 3 and replenish in 4-5 turns. The pool system works so that if you drain it the pool it takes a while to get another.

I managed to regain my homeland (a lot of turns passed, I know) after being kicked out by Mongols and Timurids. Now something really "weird" is happening, look at the screen...

http://116.imagebam.com/download/xux...7-28-05-06.png

... I had taken Mongols last settlement and they turned into horde, they headed towards Timurids domains and just fooling around Kiev for 5-6 turns. Timurids had all those armies around, definitely stronger than Mongols stacks (I had previously weakened their horde with some raids too) and yet they didn't even touch them. In the end Mongols decided to take Kiev, to be truth Timurids let Mongols take their city. 3-4 turns have passed and Timurids haven't move their armies to re-take their city. This is extremely unfair, isn't it? They keep bothering me sieging my cities and don't do a goddamn thing against Mongols? Is this some kind of conspiration against me? I even saw their diplomacy, they're enemies to Mongols, so why they act like this?

And one more thing...

http://116.imagebam.com/download/Y9G...7-28-14-70.png

... Portuguese are there since 5 turns by now. They could take Constantinople simply yawning with those full stacks... nothing to do. Why? The game is making fun of me?

Less then a single turn in the game and the only reason they survived was that the Golden Horde didn't care to rule the cities but instead left the old rulers there as long as the extremely high tribute was paid.

I had no problem winning as the Russians (in the short game) as long as I acted fast to beat the Mongols.

It was mentioned that CA cares little about historical accuracy - game balance is what they appear more concerned about. If it was historical,

Lithuania would be between Poland and the Russian principalities and more powerful then Poland who, until the Grand Prince of Lithuania married the eldest daughter of the no sons and deceased Polish king after the time frame of the game and became king of Poland and formed the polish/Lithuanian commonwealth, Poland could best be described as a minor country. Milan and Genoa were not a single entity. Spain would have been two provinces and there would not have been a Portugal until later in the game. The English rarely fought mounted as long bows would kill all the horses before a charge reached them. The French were the only group that used cross bows as a field army weapon as they just fired too slowly - they were a city/castle defense. Each Polish knight brought retainers with him - they didn't fight as separate units. Genghis Khan's empire never expanded past the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea and did no more game wise then sack Tbilisi and Baghdad. His grandson was the attacker and that was mainly in the steppes and many years after the Mongols appear in the game. The Timurids made war on the Ottoman Empire and the Mameluke caliphate for just a couple of years (and chased Bayazid out of Asia who only escaped due to the help he received from the Italian fleets. Timur the Lame was basically a Mongol (technically from a Turkized Mongol tribe) that ruled one of the three separate mongol empires (China/most of Tibet, Persia and central Asia, and the Golden Hord) - he became Khan of the Persian/central Asian part) and seemed to desire to combine the Mongol world into a single caliphate. After his short wars on the Egyptians and Turks of the game, he moved on China but died prior to being ready to attack so was vastly over stated in the game to make the game more interesting. It goes on and on - it basically isn't meant to be a historical game.