Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Historical issues...

  1. #1
    Member Member ick_of_pick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    san jose, CA, USA
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I have, and many of you may have noticed the significant historical inaccuracies in the game, and even more important, the blatant bias the developers have expressed against the Muslim factions, and to some extent the orthodox factions. Now I'm not saying the devs were completely helpless or prejudiced, they managed to get faction religion, and to a minimal extent, the geographical boundaries where the medieval empires had political control correctly. But they seemed to have designed the game with a minimum amount of regard for the Muslim factions, and as a result, the medieval Muslim factions have a unrealistically puny army. Now I’m not just ranting, I've done a significant amount of research, and I'm not the only one who's complaining about this. The stupid mistakes are as follows:

    Resources:
    No iron in Damascus...I mean seriously. Didn’t the Arab and Persian smiths of Damascus possess the most advanced sword making techniques in the world? Even the Japanese did not yet have that technology On top of that, there is no other province in the Middle East or far eastern Europe that contains any iron.

    No gold in Arabia

    Little iron in northern Germany.

    No iron in Egypt, one of the largest raw material trading centers of the medieval world. Hell, I don’t even know if Egypt has food as a tradable good, the most useless Nile River I’ve ever seen.

    Strategic map:

    Made as if the battle of Manzekirt never took place.

    The Armenians are supposed to be Christian, but the province is 99% Muslim.

    The rest of the Factions basically have the wrong provinces.

    Units:

    Here is goes:

    Janissaries were really firearm based soldiers.

    Templar were supposed to be the most experienced and feared of the crusading orders, but here they're the worst.

    No Varangians in late? How about doing your homework before you make a game?

    Byzantine Kataphraktoi never charged into battle, they were too weighed down by the armor. They would trot into battle and start jabbing with their kontos, and act more like a mounted phalanx then charging knights, but they have a charge of 8, and the armor is pretty pathetic for the speed, especially when it’s their primary heavy cavalry unit for the ENTIRE GAME.

    Firearms suck. The gun units act more like a human wall of demoralization then a division of projectile-based soldiers.

    Lancers and Goths have the same armor, but the Goths are slower.

    Nizaris cost 400 florins and lose to just about everything, -4 defense is a little undermining no?

    Only get 12 Hashishin...



    Mongol heavy cavalry is more heavily armored then chivalric knights but has significantly less melee? And the charge is only 6? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MONGOLS HERE. The Mongols were actually reported to fight extremely aggressively in hand-to-hand combat, often throwing themselves halfway off their horses to jump on an enemy, and then leap back on with one leg still on the horse.
    On top of all this embarrassment, the famously loyal warriors of the Great Khan just seem to be waiting for the chance to turn and run. Mongol infantry are largely ineffective, being both weak in melee and low in moral. They are only decent as normal foot archers with cool looking helmets you trade an arm and a leg for.


    Now the biggest problem: Islamic Cavalry

    It is common knowledge that the one of the most expensive, fast and the most enduring horse is the Arabian. Now, I can understand the majority of Muslim lance-based cavalry having a charge of 6, as the Arabian is smaller, and therefore lighter then the destrier (large European horse), but it has naturally more endurance, and is significantly faster, let alone with all the armor the European knights wear. Now let’s start with the units.

    Ghulam: The most basic Islamic cavalry. Ghulams were slave warriors who were trained from a young age in cavalry warfare. Being slaves, they were not allowed to do much more then practice fighting and actually fight, and their spare time consisted almost entirely of practice. They have a Melee of 3? The most advanced sword making techniques, constant practice, as well as very well bred mounts, and they have a melee of 3? on top of that, they move at the same speed as a European knight clad in armor, on a huge heavy, and generally poorly bred horse.

    Ghulam Body Guards: Intentionally made worse then their European Counterpart despite superior Arab craftsmanship, higher emphasis on swordsmanship during training, constant practice on hunting fields and simulated combat, and only the best horses for the Sultans Guards. Not saying the European Royal Guards were anything to laugh at, they just didn’t put as much emphasis on cavalry combat, and the higher armor rating makes sense, but in general, giving Islamic cavalry lower melee is completely unrealistic.

    Khwarazmiam: While most Persian cavalry were heavily armored as is accurately portrayed here, the rather lousy charge and melee puts them almost in the same position as the Ghulams. While Persian training was not as rigorous as the Turks or Arabs of the time, the Persian horses were massive, similar to the destrier in size and strength, reason being that Persian territory is not mostly desert like the western parts of the mid-east, but is largely a plateau, where the horses evolved differently then the smaller, but faster Arabians. But alas, the Khwarazmiam have a charge of 6, and a once again a pathetic melee of 3, AND it take a master spear maker and master horse breeder to produce them. Please don’t say they're worth the relatively small cost, generals need fighting units, not cannon fodder in the form of heavy cavalry.

    Ottoman Sipahi: why are they even here? They are not nearly the equivalent of heavy cavalry, and they don’t have the speed of light cavalry, not to mention they are only available in an era where medium cavalry is obsolete.

    Camels have no problem with temperate climates. Strange how they seem to have the same charge value of a fully armored khwarazmiam, and about 2/3rds the speed and cost.

    Sipahi of the Porte: they're ok, but the unit size is just a bit too small to be effective. Not to mention, being a late era unit only, they have a weak melee ability of 4, despite the massive scimitar, and the superior training of Turkish cavalry.

    Now the one thing that really got to me...Mamluks:

    Most people know very little about the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt, but those who do know will probably be quick to realize there is seriously something wrong here…The Mamluks were arguably the most powerful cavalry force on the face of the planet. They beat the Mongols at their own game, pretty much destroyed the Seljuk Turks, Drove out the crusaders entirely, invaded deep into Africa, conquered the lesser Armenian kingdom, took Syria from the Mongols, and took Cyprus, all within 100 years and without losing a battle outside of a civil war. How did they do it? Well, let’s start with the most powerful cavalry force on the face of the planet. The Mamluks were superbly trained, superbly equipped, disciplined to the point of insanity, and were the top of the physical gene pool, as they were chosen and bought as slaves according to their strength and martial ability as young children, aged 5 average. The equipment that they were provided with was of the highest quality steel, some of it, despite being some three hundred years old, was later used by Napoleon Bonaparte’s cavalry, as well as the horses that had been carefully bred by the Mamluks for hundreds of years.
    Now, let’s see what happened here…Mamluk Cavalry: cost 275, charge 4, melee 2, defense 3, armor 4, and honor 4.
    That’s insulting. Melee of 2??? Honor 4???

    Mamluk Horse archers: cost 375; charge 2, melee 3, defense 1, armor 3, honor 4.
    Once again, insulting. Not only do they cost more then the heavier ax-armed version, they have higher melee capabilities and the same low honor.


    I have played this game a lot, and I have spent even more time reading history books, particularly medieval history, and I can recognize obvious mistakes when I see them. As for all the above, it is not like me to complain about something without offering at least one possible solution to the problem. In my opinion, the total war community, or at least those who read and/or respond to this post should put some sort of effort to work together and create a unit stats modification that will take us a little closer to real medieval history. I would be happy to take the responsibility of compiling the information your provide me with, and doing the actual modding myself, just so long as I have your opinions on it. My objective here is not to edit the single player game to make it more realistic, but get a mod circulating that could easily be played online with other people, and would be as simple as a “realism mod” from any first-person shooter.

    Thanks, Ick

  2. #2
    Boondock Saint Senior Member The Blind King of Bohemia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,294

    Default

    I like some of you ideas, i might use alot of them for my mod if you don't mind mate

    Couldn't agree more about islamic units, Templar knights, etc

  3. #3
    Member Member ah_dut's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,292

    Default

    u are mainly right apart from the mamluks beating the mongols at their own game. are u refering to ain jalut again? please we e've had enough arguments about this in the monastary, the mamluks sidestepped the blow every year. they put forward their best force at Ain Jalut just to fight a small mongol-turkic force. the true horde as such was fighting in damascus.
    about the mongols, they were the best. They were better then the mamluks. easily.
    if you need to back up my opinions on mamluks contact orda khan.

  4. #4
    Member Member RollingWave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Republic of China (Taiwan)
    Posts
    352

    Default

    hehe.. a lot of it makes a lot of sense... the only problem is ... how the hell would catholic factions stand a chance?XD.....

    Though some other things would probably balance it a bit... like pricing... and AUM should be weaker....

    I think a lot of things are debatable though... it is widely agreed that in general muslim elite cavalries are much more discplined compare to knights... but as for melee... the significantly better armor of the knights (espically later on) would have been quiet a challanage for them....

    The pricing in for Horse archers are higher for balance reasons.... if they are cheap hoarding them would prove far too effective..... (as was in real history very often.... )

  5. #5
    Member Member lonewolf371's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    381

    Default

    It's very interesting but doesn't this belong in the Monastary? You might find some other historians around there to comment on your points. Almost all the people I know consider me a history expert if I go up to them and say "gladius" but the people in the Monastary blow my knowledge away in two seconds.

    Or possibly the Engineer's Guild. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of good modders you can find in the forum BKB included.




  6. #6
    Scruffy Looking Nerf Herder Member Steppe Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    7,907

    Default

    Check out BKB's mod, as it works a lot to fix this. And you think the historical issues in this game was bad, wait until the blaring mistakes in RTW.




    "But if you should fall you fall alone,
    If you should stand then who's to guide you?
    If I knew the way I would take you home."
    Grateful Dead, "Ripple"

  7. #7
    Member Member Ar7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Reval, Livonia
    Posts
    299

    Default

    They did not get the religion right. One example is Armenia and the second one is Livonia. Livonia was only attacked by the Germans in the beginning of the 13 century and thus only then they were turned into christianity. This did not fully happen for atleast 50 years if not more. Now in the game Livonia starts as a fully orthodox province in 1188.

    Livonia was never orthodox. There was a time when a big part of the population converted into orthodox under the rule of the Russian tzars somewhere around 18 century. That was because rumors spread that the tzar will give them freedom and land if they adopt his religion.

    So what they have done to Livonia is really stupid. There may be more examples on this though i am not really sure so i won't speak.

    There was link i read recently about the kats. They really did charge into battle. They were really close to each other and then charged, basically they were an armored spike wall that just rode over everything.

  8. #8
    Member Member ick_of_pick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    san jose, CA, USA
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I put it here because i figured it would be seen by the most diverse crowd, by that I mean people from all the forums...as for the Mamluks and Mongols at Ayn Jalut, the mamluks were outnumbered in that battle, thought the Mamluks had almost six time the numbers of the mongols, only 12,000 of the Mamluks actully engaged in combat, the rest of the Massive army was miles away, and yes, the mongols almost won and they had even had Christian allies, Armenians and Crusaders. But the Mamluks won and they scored many minor victories against the mongols in Syria afterwards. The reason the Mamluks avoided confrontations with the Mongols was mostly because of the mongols reputation, they diddnt know exactly how well thier forces would stand up to the mongols. Qutuz just happened to be either really brave, or kinda nutters, but either way, he came out on top, but anyway, this all proves, the mongol units arent good enough either.

    I suppose I could always put this on other forums, but my objective is for people to agree on a common mod, but i think ill take your advice.

    as for the mongols being the best, they were. But they were outdated. The Mamluks had guns, which they used in the followup battle after Ayn Jalut.




  9. #9

    Default

    mamluk vs. mongol: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~fisher....ss.html

    I think that somewhere in this article is written that most mamluks weren't equipped that well.
    Mamluks were however very reliant on cavalry, so units of 60 instead of 40 may be more accurate.
    The higher attack of western knight may be explained by the length of western cavalry swords: I think they were longer than eastern swords, so it's easier to cut down infantry.

    But I agree with most of your ideas.




  10. #10
    Member Member ick_of_pick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    san jose, CA, USA
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Thats a very good article you found, but it is actually very pro-mamluk, though it makes sense. As for Eastern and western swords compared, western swords were longer then Middle Eastern infantry swords, which were similar to the short swords used by the Assyrians and Romans. The Middle Eastern cavalry however, used long, curved and wide bladed scimitars, which were undoubtebly better in mounted combat, against infantry and other cavalry. Some of the knights templar began using scimitars after thier experience in the middle east, and used thier traditional western swords as ceremonial weapons.

  11. #11
    Member Member Ragss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    210

    Default

    About the sword technology, you refer to the Japanese swords, so I'm assuming you mean that the ' Arab and Persian smiths of Damascus ' were using folded steel (that is the technique used on katana's, right?) long before the japs. I also heard on some history show, that the huscarl's, possibley saxons?, made swords with this technique something like 300 years before the japs. I'm simply curious, who came first?



    Anyways, you do make it sound like the Muslim cavalry is quite a bit worse than it should be, but this is a game after all, and gameplay comes before historical accuracy.
    To win without risk is to have victory without glory.

  12. #12
    robotica erotica Member Colovion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    2,295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Ragss @ July 25 2004,01:48)]About the sword technology, you refer to the Japanese swords, so I'm assuming you mean that the ' Arab and Persian smiths of Damascus ' were using folded steel (that is the technique used on katana's, right?) long before the japs. I also heard on some history show, that the huscarl's, possibley saxons?, made swords with this technique something like 300 years before the japs. I'm simply curious, who came first?



    Anyways, you do make it sound like the Muslim cavalry is quite a bit worse than it should be, but this is a game after all, and gameplay comes before historical accuracy.
    Yeah the Hittites were the first with the Iron weapons and was the reason they were such a dominating force back around 2000 BC. Strangely there isn't any Iron in that area though
    robotica erotica

  13. #13
    Member Member ick_of_pick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    san jose, CA, USA
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Folding steel is different then the damascene process. while is is apparent that folding the steel during the process of making swords makes a big difference, it wasnt until the arabs invented the blast furnace that they were able to burn off most of the impurities in iron to produce extremely pure steel. the damascene process is the process of watering the blade as its being forged. the water superheats, and causes the steel to bond closer together, making it stronger. It also produces a cool pattern on the blade. The byzantines (and many others) ended up importing swords from damascus.

    ick

  14. #14

    Default

    mod these changes in then.

    One of the best things about this game is that almost everything in it can be changed in a freaking .TXT FILE I've never tinkered with other games like I have with this one, so I have no idea, but it just bowled me over that almost all the code and stuff that determined how the units acted, etc. was written in a text file. It's so simple.

    Anyway, make the game as you like it. The only thing to be wary of is that if you buff one side, for historically accurate reasons or not, you may tip the balance too far. In that case, there are either equally powerful changes that need be made to the other factions, or the reason for their better historical performance was due to variables this game does not take into account.

    Definitely fix the shortcomings you see. Just be sure to fix the other shortcomings you don't see yet (once they appear) to strike a good balance.
    Fac et Spera

  15. #15
    robotica erotica Member Colovion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Victoria, Canada
    Posts
    2,295

    Default

    I haven't played it yet, but does MedMod come closer to this vision?
    robotica erotica

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO