Historical Army Composition Rule

[TinCow]

As per the discussion in the Rules Draft thread, should we keep this rule? Here is how it reads at the moment:

4.4 – Historical Army Composition: Only historical armies can fight battles (ahistorical stacks can be used for transport). No more than half the units in an army can be mercenaries. Crusader mercenaries (crusader sergeants, crusader knights, pilgrims, fanatics, great crosses, etc.) do not count as mercenaries. Crusades are exempt from restrictions on the number of generals. The maxima for each unit type by the number of units in the stack is:


Unit Type definitions (units can qualify for multiple Types):
Knights: All units with “Knight” in their name plus all heavy cavalry.
Cavalry: All mounted units.
Missile Inf: All dismounted ranged attackers, except artillery units and javelin units.
Heavy Inf: All heavy infantry units.
Other Inf: All unmounted units which do not qualify as Missile Inf or Heavy Inf.
Artillery: All units produced from the siegeworks and gunsmith line of buildings.

[Cecil XIX]

Much as I dislike this rule, I dislike the idea of us having multiple all-cavalry stacks even more. I'd keep it as is, or to compromise simplify the rule so that there's only one cap per category regardless of size.

[Zim]

Although I'm sure I'll dislike the rule whenever it's affecting me in the game, I think generally it's better to have it (or something similiar) than not. I'd consider simplifying it as Cecil suggested, and perhaps counting non knight heavy cavalry (like Gendarmes and such) in the cavalry category, so there's incentive to use them.

Much as I'd like to tailor make my army, I think battles against the AI and PVP battles would be much less interesting if we can build uber stacks. Imagine if the Battle of Trent had consisted of a dozen plus all knight armies.

On the other hand, if the AI is to be provided with triple gold stacks every 5 turns or so, we need all the help we can get, including all knight armies.

[gibsonsg91921]

I would hate to have ridiculous all-knight armies, that's just silly. All light-cav armies aren't out of the question, if they weren't too huge. 1,000 light cavalry is not a tactic used by western powers, but a raiding force of 500 would be cool. Too many knights isn't historically accurate, though.

[Ignoramus]

I agree with gibson. There must be at least a limitation on the number of Knights in armies. Knights were the cream of all medieval armies and shouldn't drop off trees.

[FactionHeir]

As proposed in the Postmortem, we need to have some knight limit and make categories no longer overlapping.

Say cavalry != knight, unless it has the word "knight" in its name, in which case it is counted as knight rather than cavalry. Same applies to infantry.
Then have a max 50% cavalry and 30% knight rule or so. (which means you can have 50% non-knight cavalry AND 30% knights + 20% missile/infantry/artillery if you really wanted)

[AussieGiant]

I really don't like the rule...as Chancellor I really didn't do too much checking about composition.

I essentially did a sweeping "sanity" check for armies overloaded in anyway. That included Knights, Pavise Xbow, etc etc. Of course the in-balance I was looking for was mainly an overload of knights.

It might be easier to simply have a; quarter, half, 3/4 and full stack limit on the total number of 'knight' regiments. This is both mounted or dismounted.

[TinCow]

As proposed in the Postmortem, we need to have some knight limit and make categories no longer overlapping.

Say cavalry != knight, unless it has the word "knight" in its name, in which case it is counted as knight rather than cavalry. Same applies to infantry.
Then have a max 50% cavalry and 30% knight rule or so. (which means you can have 50% non-knight cavalry AND 30% knights + 20% missile/infantry/artillery if you really wanted)

I like this. It avoids the main problem (exploitation of cavalry) and it's relatively simple. I'm not keen on the 50% non-knights and 30% knights cavalry bit, though. That's just designing the rule to be intentionally exploited. The problem is cavalry, so let's just limit that to 50%, whether knights or not. Knights also limited to 30% would result in armies like this:
30% knight cavalry
20% non-knight cavalry
50% foot

Or

50% non-knight cavalry
30% knight foot
20% misc foot

Both seem fine to me.

[gibsonsg91921]

Meaning you can only have a halfstack of cavalry? I dig.

[FactionHeir]

Hmmm if we continue to double count knights within cavalry/infantry, we may need to raise the limit a bit, to say 40%.
Alternatively, we can differentiate, saying 30% of your cavalry can be knights and 30% of your infantry can be knights.

[Ramses II CP]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not in favor of a percentage cap. Why don't we limit it by raw numbers; i.e. no more than 5 companies of knights in any army. No more than, say, 8 total companies of cavalry, 10 of archers, etc, etc.

At the very most I'd suggest two sets of flat cap rules, one for half or less, one for more than a half. So perhaps no more than 3 knights in a half stack or less, no more than 6 in a full stack. Thus you might have a general plus 3 knights as the most extreme example of an ahistorical army. I'd much rather have to deal with that than figure 4 different percentages for all those different stack sizes every turn.

[TinCow]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm not in favor of a percentage cap. Why don't we limit it by raw numbers; i.e. no more than 5 companies of knights in any army. No more than, say, 8 total companies of cavalry, 10 of archers, etc, etc.

At the very most I'd suggest two sets of flat cap rules, one for half or less, one for more than a half. So perhaps no more than 3 knights in a half stack or less, no more than 6 in a full stack. Thus you might have a general plus 3 knights as the most extreme example of an ahistorical army. I'd much rather have to deal with that than figure 4 different percentages for all those different stack sizes every turn.

That would probably be easier to keep track of. One restriction for 10 units or less and one restriction for 11 units or more. Both of which only restrict the use of heavy cavalry. Simple, easy to keep track of, and it would prevent the imbalance we're looking for.

At this point I'm not so much looking to mimic historical armies as I am trying to prevent easy exploitation of mass cavalry armies.

[AussieGiant]

That would probably be easier to keep track of. One restriction for 10 units or less and one restriction for 11 units or more. Both of which only restrict the use of heavy cavalry. Simple, easy to keep track of, and it would prevent the imbalance we're looking for.

At this point I'm not so much looking to mimic historical armies as I am trying to prevent easy exploitation of mass cavalry armies.

That's perfect.

[Ramses II CP]

If that's the system we decide on I will definitely alter my vote from 'discard the rule' to 'change the rule.' I absolutely think we should avoid explotative armies, I'd just like to keep the burden the the Chancellor as small as possible so that the rule is both followed and fair.

[Privateerkev]

That would probably be easier to keep track of. One restriction for 10 units or less and one restriction for 11 units or more. Both of which only restrict the use of heavy cavalry. Simple, easy to keep track of, and it would prevent the imbalance we're looking for.

At this point I'm not so much looking to mimic historical armies as I am trying to prevent easy exploitation of mass cavalry armies.

Yeah, I will change my vote from "discard rule" to "change rule".

This seems to be simple for the Chancellor to implement while keeping us from exploiting the awesome power of heavy cavalry.

[TinCow]

Ok, so the question then becomes how many heavy cav at the two levels? Maybe 3 max for half stack and 5 max full full stack, where generals do not count as heavy cav?

[_Tristan_]

Ok, so the question then becomes how many heavy cav at the two levels? Maybe 3 max for half stack and 5 max full full stack, where generals do not count as heavy cav?

Seems reasonable... Such terms also change my vote from "discard" to "change"...

Will exceptions be allowed when facing cavalry heavy AI armies (such as the full cav gold-chevrons French stacks post-Cataclysm or Mongols) ?

[TinCow]

Will exceptions be allowed when facing cavalry heavy AI armies (such as the full cav gold-chevrons French stacks post-Cataclysm or Mongols) ?

If we want to change it mid-game, we just need to pass an Amendment.

Here's the version of the rule I have incorporated in the new draft of the rules:

4.4 – Historical Army Composition: An army of 10 units or less cannot have more than 3 units of heavy cavalry. An army of 11 units or more cannot have more than 5 units of heavy cavalry. For the purposes of this rule, bodyguard units do not count as heavy cavalry. Armies that do not meet these requirements cannot fight battles under any circumstances, though they can be used for transportation.

[FactionHeir]

Ok, so the question then becomes how many heavy cav at the two levels? Maybe 3 max for half stack and 5 max full full stack, where generals do not count as heavy cav?

I would suggest 4 for half stack (10 units) and 6 for full stacks (20 units) excluding generals (assuming most of the time there will only be 1 general).

Still, I would kind of like the 25/50/75/100 divisions personally (as a half stack can well be 2 generals and 3/4 cavalry with the new rule) as they used to be (1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20) with cav only restrictions.

That still leaves the trouble with foot knights if we limit cavalry only.

[Ramses II CP]

Are foot knights significantly unbalanced, or is just a matter of observing historical accuracy? The simplest solution is to apply the 3/5 division to foot knights as well, seperate from the application to heavy cavalry. IIRC five companies of dismounted knights was about the most we saw in any of the late period KotR armies.

Also, since the rule applies only to heavy cavalry, I prefer the 3/5 or at most 3/6 division. Give me those three, a good general, and 2-3 more companies of light cavalry on the side and I'd take on just about any stack the AI could reasonably assemble.

[FactionHeir]

I agree that it would be a good idea to have the same rule to apply to knight infantry as well.

In regards to cavalry, 3/6 would be agreeable as well. One thing that I don't quite like about the new wording though is that there is now no limit on how many GBs you can have in a stack. Accordingly, you could have 4 or more in addition to the heavy cavalry limit and a large supply of light and/or missile cavalry.

[Cecil XIX]

In my experience I would only want to have one extra GB at the most, otherwise it's too distracting and stessful. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way either.

[TinCow]

I don't think we should restrict the number of GBs per stack simply because the more GBs there are in a battle, the more likely an avatar is to get killed. If you don't mind having your nobleman being handled by someone who may use them as front-line cavalry, then you're risking death. This is especially true with many of the mods which increase the difficulty of the game with better AI and garrison scripts. KOTR was already surprisingly lethal, and I expect the next game to be even more so.

That said, if the majority want a GB limit I will go along with it. I'm more impartial about the army limits beyond GB. I will accept whatever you guys agree is best for heavy cav, foot knights, etc. I prefer balanced armies anyway, so it won't impact my play style.