inuit lancers(!!)...

[Thermal]

Well, let's be fair: capturing a canon does not mean one knows how to use it (ballistics, for example) and has plentiful ammunition to practice ;)

well, lets be fair, if they saw some weird European use it, they probably have an idea of how it works

[Slaists]

well, lets be fair, if they saw some weird European use it, they probably have an idea of how it works

Including trajectory calculations and making their own shots? ;)

[Mr Frost]

well, lets be fair, if they saw some weird European use it, they probably have an idea of how it works

That doesn't explain how they managed to avoid destroying the gun by over charging it with powder {a problem for even some trained gun crews at the time} nor how they managed to get enough iron for the cannonballs {never mind should they somehow aquire grape} to even get in a bare minimum of practise , let alone enough for even one battle .




For a well documented theater and period of warfare that serves well as an illustration of the topic :
When the Maroi whom fought the British managed to capture cannons , they still had the problem of not knowing at first how to make gun powder . After they learned how to make the propellant , they then found they never had enough ammunition for a battle so had to use scrap metal and rocks which meant the weapon were nothing more than nusiance "weapons" that could only anoy and sometimes frustrate the Brits into charging the Moroi forts where in close combat the Moroi {the meme about Island Boys being rather beefy and good brawlers is actually based on fact} could match the better equipted British .

The problem also extended to muskets and rifles in that there was never enough ammunition {lead doesn't grow on trees , and stone-age technology cultures have little incentive to even know of the existance of lead intill they encounter higher technology peoples} .

This is what makes their achievements in the three major wars they forced the British Empire to fight with them so impressive , they really were always at a massive technological dissadvantage {as were the American Indians Vs all their European and U.S. opponents} .










Realistically , the American Indian native roster musket units should have only half the ammunition of their European counterparts {inluding the Native Auxiliary units as they would have been suppilied by their employers} and their cannon {which should be almost as rare as an honest politician} should not only have fairly limited ammunition and very poor accuracy and reload times , but also it might be best to create new sub-standard ammunition types for them . Their artilery capabilities generally sucked by a big margin and {compared to their European and U.S. opponents} continued to do so right up to the point when the last tribe was defeated .
Again , that they held on as long as they did deserves great respect .

To keep them a credible threat in the game , give their archers and musket men good melee , perhaps ballance their defense and attack a bit better {the European line infantry did not wear any armour , not even helmets -those things on their heads are made of thin felt or cloth- whereas some indians did -wood and bone and sometimes thick hide/cloth- and some would carry shields} so after the muskets limited ammo is gone they are still effective {they would have generally been some of the most formidable warriors of their tribe anyway to have aquired the muskets in the first place} and give their horsemen {which should not be found in Eskimo country !} a more realistic field of fire and the ability to fire on the move {same goes for horse archers and most mounted carbine and musket equipted units} .

[DisruptorX]

To keep them a credible threat in the game , give their archers and musket men good melee , perhaps ballance their defense and attack a bit better {the European line infantry did not wear any armour , not even helmets -those things on their heads are made of thin felt or cloth- whereas some indians did -wood and bone and sometimes thick hide/cloth- and some would carry shields} so after the muskets limited ammo is gone they are still effective {they would have generally been some of the most formidable warriors of their tribe anyway to have aquired the muskets in the first place} and give their horsemen {which should not be found in Eskimo country !} a more realistic field of fire and the ability to fire on the move {same goes for horse archers and most mounted carbine and musket equipted units} .

It is very bizarre that European line infantry are the superior melee warriors, while most non European factions can match them in ranged combat.

For example, my chain mail clad Bhargir infantry can put up a great show at range, and most likely defeat European regiments since I will probably have researched better drills. Get them into melee, however, and they will lose.

[Belgolas]

You guys are getting it all wrong. They would ride moose into battle :p

[Sheogorath]

It is very bizarre that European line infantry are the superior melee warriors, while most non European factions can match them in ranged combat.

For example, my chain mail clad Bhargir infantry can put up a great show at range, and most likely defeat European regiments since I will probably have researched better drills. Get them into melee, however, and they will lose.

To be fair, though, heavier armor doesn't always mean a win in the melee. In fact, chain mail probably wouldn't do much good against a solid bayonet thrust, and getting smacked with a musket butt...well...

That was a lesson the Ottomans learned the hard way in the Napoleonic era, when they were still fielding what were essentially medieval heavy cavalry.

Really, in this time period a breastplate is probably about as heavy as is wise to go. Everything else is just baggage, and making it heavy enough to stop pistol shot would be impractical...and since most cavalry carried at least a couple of pistols...well...

It's kinda like that scene in Indiana Jones.


For the native units, I was also quite dissapointed at the representation of Georgia and Dagistan. Both are probably the heaviest competition any Eastern player is going to get (Ottomans or Russians, they always seem to attack and produce massive armies (by early game standards) to do so.)

However, both of them field European line regiments. Dagistan gets some Eastern-style militia (Islamic Swordsmen, I think) but no other unique types of units.

And, you'll pardon me for saying so, but the idea of a central-asian khannate fielding European-style line regiments in 1700 is just about as silly as inuit lancers. Especially European-style regiments who dress exactly the same as everybody elses.

It kind of detracts from the pleasure of fighting in the area. You don't feel like you're up against a central asian state. You feel like you're fighting one of the other clone-armies of Europe.

The same goes for Georgia. While they were probably a bit better off than Dagistan, they couldn't defend themselves against PERSIA later on (although that is partially the fault of the Russians, who were supposed to defend them, but didn't) and ended up getting annexed by Russia with minimal effort.

Really, CA's presentation of most of the non-European factions is quite lazy, even in comparison to the rather lazy treatment of the Europeans themselves. The only ones which are really satisfying in their development are the Ottomans and Marathas. I'd say the Mughals, but from what I've seen they're essentially just green Maratha clones.

[DisruptorX]

snip

That is true. Armor does not mean superior melee ability. Bhargir's have substantially lower defense skills, as well, however. Not really complaining, since they obviously should be worse than European line, its just that they are notably worse in melee, not at range.

As for the eastern factions, I agree. And it is a great opportunity for the inevitable mods that will come out and flesh out the factions. Perhaps they will also change the Native American factions so that their warriors will have a loose formation like the Ottoman swordsmen do, rather than their absurdly ordered current state. And, of course, the subject of this threat.

The Moghuls, however, as I have had much experience in fighting them, are quite different visually from the the Marathas. They have a few visually unique (as far as I've seen) units, and many of their troops are more similar to the Persians than the Marathas. They do have some mirror units such as Islamic Swordsman, of course. I am unsure of how accurate their armies are, merely that they have a different selection.

[Megas Methuselah]

Mughals, Persians, Afghans, and Khiva are all clones.

[anweRU]

Not PC in this day and age, but I do dare say that CA has the typical snobbish British attitudes of the 19th and early 20th centuries. What else can explain the weird unit selections and imbalances in battle performances for non-European, even non-British countries?

[Mr Frost]

...In fact, chain mail probably wouldn't do much good against a solid bayonet thrust...

Incorrect , though given the vast amount of Victorian era ignorant tosh that passed for history that is still doing the rounds in popular mindset , you cannot be blamed too much for thinking so .

Even moderatly well made riveted mail would stop a bayonet thrust from Andre the Giant {though were he to indeed be hitting you it would certainly leave a bruise} and is virtually impervious to most muscle powered weapons .
Only the armour piercing spikes on warhammers and halberds and the like can actually penetrate it{and not every time either !} and only very heavy blows , such as from maces , can incapacitate the wearer with only one or a few hits places where the maile is protecting .
Weapons like swords and spears {and a bayonet is inferior to a spear} can only kill when hitting portions of their foe protected by riveted or welded {which was indeed used by the Ottomans and Persians both} maile if the blows are very many {which takes a long time giving the wearer ample opportunity to slay their attacker} . It is what knights wore on the first few Crusades and the Roman , Gauls , Greeks and others found it performed admirably against spear {which again are much better in melee than bayonets} .


The reason some European forces could out fight such troops wasn't some "uber" property of fixed bayonets™ , but rather a combination of better fireing drills {with both more good quality modern guns and more ammunition} and better discipline and that typically said encounters were between professional European forces against armies that had many poorly trained conscripts that were swept away {or ran} quickly allowing the Europeans to compromise the enemies line and outflank them .

The only reason Europeans abandoned all armour except for some cavalry {and even then in rather limited fashion} was simply expense and that firepower won battles {bayonet charges almost always happened after the enemy had been shot to peices and were ready to break , actual melee was fairly rare in European warfare of the time} .






You did correctly note the real weakness of maile armour in the period : bullets . Maile won't do anything significant to save you from a bullet , however it would be excellent against bayonets .
The unit that was mentioned really should have better defense {the idea that European line infantry which lacked even helmets and used a weapon actually poorly ballanced for melee {a bayonetted musket or rifle} would have had better defense in melee than a maile armoured soldier {which given the expense of the armour , would have been atleast somewhat skilled in melee otherwise they would never have been giver or aquired the armour in the first place} is quite silly . They should probably have a good melee attack too .
Most tales of European troops being better in melee using bayonets than dedicated melee fighters with dedicated melee weapons is jingoistic B.S. somewhere along the line that either ignore numbers and other advantages on the line infantries' side or pretends that poorly trained civilians whom got their hands on an armory were actual warriors . Like most things in history , you have to wade through a lot of bollocks and use plenty of common sense to find out what actually happened .


I hope I didn't come across as rude or overly critical of you by the way . If I did I am sorry as it isn't my intention . I am a fair bit fuzzy at the moment {tired and sore} , just that it was one issue of history that always bugs me .
I'm betting there is a typo in there somewhere too

[Sheogorath]

Incorrect , though given the vast amount of Victorian era ignorant tosh that passed for history that is still doing the rounds in popular mindset , you cannot be blamed too much for thinking so .

Even moderatly well made riveted mail would stop a bayonet thrust from Andre the Giant {though were he to indeed be hitting you it would certainly leave a bruise} and is virtually impervious to most muscle powered weapons .
Only the armour piercing spikes on warhammers and halberds and the like can actually penetrate it{and not every time either !} and only very heavy blows , such as from maces , can incapacitate the wearer with only one or a few hits places where the maile is protecting .
Weapons like swords and spears {and a bayonet is inferior to a spear} can only kill when hitting portions of their foe protected by riveted or welded {which was indeed used by the Ottomans and Persians both} maile if the blows are very many {which takes a long time giving the wearer ample opportunity to slay their attacker} . It is what knights wore on the first few Crusades and the Roman , Gauls , Greeks and others found it performed admirably against spear {which again are much better in melee than bayonets} .

That would largely depend on the TYPE of bayonet being used.

True, a knife bayonet (such as the plug types you initially get) wouldn't have much effect. However, the 'spike' types which are used later (ring and plugs) would be effective against mail. Rings have holes in them, and being flexible, would do little to stop a thrust from that type of bayonet. Even if the bayonet didn't go all the way through the ring, the fact that the armor flexes to some degree would mean that you could get a pretty good puncture wound.

Taken from the commanders point of view, if that wound is a gut wound, it's just as good as killing the enemy. Even in the modern day, gut wounds are treated very seriously. It only takes a little hole for infection to set in.

Now, multiple layers of mail would certainly be more effective, however, that would be both quite heavy and rather expensive, not something, I think, many people outside of officers or elite units would be wearing.

I hope I didn't come across as rude or overly critical of you by the way . If I did I am sorry as it isn't my intention . I am a fair bit fuzzy at the moment {tired and sore} , just that it was one issue of history that always bugs me .
I'm betting there is a typo in there somewhere too

It's fine, I try to avoid being one of the overly sensitive types who responds to any criticism with vitriol