Obsolete troop types

[Sinner]

Something that has always bugged about MTW is units becoming obsolete & no longer buildable.

Historically certain styles of warfare and the troops thus required die out due to factors such as economics, battlefield effectiveness - whether perceived or real - military fashion & demographic changes.

Would the Saxon/Scandinavian style of axe-wielding heavy infantry, the huscarle, have died out if William had lost at Hastings. If the Normans hadn't had the confidence and 'proof' of the apparent superiority of their style of heavy horse over the huscarle from that battle, would the eventual rise of the Western knight with couched lance - something that owes a lot to the Normans - have occured or been as widespread? Further down that line of thought, would all the countertroops, such as the pike, have then been developed/re-developed?

By the nature of the game, history in MTW does not follow the same pattern as our real history, so why would your military stop arming themselves and fighting in the style of huscarles, for example, if you win battle after battle with those troops? The gradual technology changes that improved the armour & weapons of the knight would in this alternate game history have been instead applied to the huscarle, perhaps eventually leading to them being plate-armored - in effect the chivalric/gothic foot knight, but via a different route.

With this thinking, I prefer to mod the game so that for campaigns that begin in Early no troop type ever becomes obsolete, leaving it to the whims of the AI to determine what gets built by the other factions. With High and Late starting campaigns, I consider the history to be fixed and troop types that are already obsolete stay obsolete though. I haven't yet gone as far as creating new units that are perhaps logical developments of otherwise abandoned troop types, the plate-armored huscarle being an obvious one from my above example, but it would make an interesting alternate-history mod. Maybe one day, but with RTW on the way, MTW itself will soon be obsolete.

[munrock]

I agree with you. I'm not sure what triggers the Marius reforms in the game, but I hope that it's triggered by certain circumstances that mimmick the situation that promted the reforms in real life, as opposed to a date chosen by taking the year of the real reforms and giving or taking up to 5 years or something.

[massamuusi]

I vote peasants and all their equals. They should be right out.
Take one of them with you, it gets scared and then your whole army starts routing because one of the peasants got hit by ballista...

I think the dying of unit types should at least have something to do with how widely they're trained, for example, arab infantry, if no one trains them for 150 years since they appear, and no one ever uses them, except one rebellion where they get their asses kicked, wouldn't it be ok if they became unavailable?
Dunno...

[eadeater]

I just think that the viking landsmen rule and shouldnt become obsolete. In my opinion they are easily better than all the militias and the peasants and event the feudal units, and would give chivalric men-at-arms a good fight as well.

[Plantagenet]

I agree, but since I generally don't use peasant or equivalent troops, I wouldn't mind losing those.

Gnome Editor makes it extremely easy to fix though. Just replace the periods the unit is available with "All Periods".

[LeeJackson]

I just lost the ability to produce all the cool Vikings in my Danish game. I Hate that! Those units are what make the Danes fun to play, but since they have a long ramp up period you usually don’t get to have to many.

[Sardo]

In my HRE campaign, I used to have a fair bunch of viking troops. Nearly a full stack of just landsmenn and some huscarles in Naples alone, waiting to be reassigned to several other stacks so as to balance all armies out a bit.

Then, the emperor (who, at the age of 63, had succeeded his brother who died at 65, because the latter's eldest son was only a kid, about 12 years old) died two years after his ascension to the throne, before his nephew had come of age. The count of Flanders was then elected emperor, but for some reason, probably some marriage I'd forgotten about, Naples was turned over to the Sicilians, along with all those vikings!



Now, I'm just waiting for the Sicilians to break our alliance to jump on those traitors with a big army and ride them down with lots and lots of mercenary heavy cavalry, putting an end to the viking era.

[Kali]

[QUOTE=Sinner]Something that has always bugged about MTW is units becoming obsolete & no longer buildable.

In a way Huscarles don't just die out historically but stop being the decisive elemant on the field. Anglo-Norman armies still used the fryd into the 12th and Huscarles style units such as Gallowglaichts. The Gallowglass was an Irish warrior of Scandinavian origin often wielding an Axe. The french used Scottish Gallowglaichts to counter English men at arms, during the 100 years war.
But the triumph of knight over huscarle wasn't just down to "Old William" Who's horsemen were chucking as many spears as they were couching them. The problem was 8/10 A highly mobile, well trained and disciplined force will out manouver and thus often defeat a less mobile force. Huscarle armies couldn't manouver well. So could be easily out flanked and needed to sit on top of a big hill or have well protected flanks to have much chance against a cavalry force. Plus foot troops tire quicker. The root of the legend of King Arthurs knights is probably based on how a Britannic cavalry force repeatedly beat an army of Saxon Huscarles, Saxons who were being driven west by the knock on effect of the Hunic invasions (more guys on horses).
But thats just history and modding can be easy and fun. I introduced Elephants for some of the Muslim factions just coz they look cool.

[Sinner]

I agree, but since I generally don't use peasant or equivalent troops, I wouldn't mind losing those.

Gnome Editor makes it extremely easy to fix though. Just replace the periods the unit is available with "All Periods".

I leave the peasants in but add the Muster Field from the Vikings campaign to the Medieval campaign, making that a build requirement for peasants & similar troops. By setting the Muster Field to a low build priority, it reduces the number of peasants that appear, but still has them available.

I also replace all the starting peasants with the various types of basic spearmen, so it means I rarely encounter them in my campaigns outside of rebellions, especially since I also mod most regions to have a greater starting infrastructure, something that greatly aids the AI in developing and deploying the more advanced troops, giving my armies something more interesting to chew on.

For some reason, I never have warmed to the Gnome Editor or any other editor, I've always prefered just using Notepad - but I am odd.

I had some spare time last night, so I created a mod that made the Viking Huscarle the royal unit for the English and the Danes - renaming it as the Early Royal Huscarle - with a modded copy of Joms Vikings (-1 Charge, +1 Armour) as the High Royal Huscarle, and a modded copy of Gothic Foot Knights (60 men, +1 Charge, -1 Defence, -1 Armour, Move 6/10/12, Cost 850 and using axes instead of two-handed swords plus having large shields with a 0.5 modifier when not in melee) as the Late Royal Huscarle. I used the Saxon Huscarle as the generic non-royal huscarle for both factions and also added Carls and Landsmenn, replacing Peasants with Thralls, but removed their ability to build Chivalric Knights and both Feudal and Chivalric Men-At-Arms.

Facing French armies of knights with huscarles has been great fun so far, although I'm having to play far more defensive tactics than I'm used to.

[munrock]

I don't think a unit should ever become unavailable because of lack of use. Right now, the British Army could start training Billmen again, but they don't 'cos they're not useful. However, even if they wanted to start raising units of longbowmen, they'd have to wait several years, as skill at longbow has to be practiced for a long time before it's useful.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but availability should be judged on this basis. The shape of an army should change according to what's required of it, and not have changes forced on it. In reality, armies improved against new treats. Burning pigs should not be buildable until the Army has faced Elephants.

However I doubt the technological changes are grand enough for a touch like this to be important enough.

[eadeater]

I think the British army SHOULD train some billmen, they could come in very handy I'd love to see a division if billmen cracking a tank open, or even better, a unit of longbowmen shooting down a fighter jet flying over head. A billman with a billhook is like a wild beast - dangerous if cornered!

[Sinner]

[QUOTE=Kali]

Something that has always bugged about MTW is units becoming obsolete & no longer buildable.

In a way Huscarles don't just die out historically but stop being the decisive elemant on the field. Anglo-Norman armies still used the fryd into the 12th and Huscarles style units such as Gallowglaichts. The Gallowglass was an Irish warrior of Scandinavian origin often wielding an Axe. The french used Scottish Gallowglaichts to counter English men at arms, during the 100 years war.
But the triumph of knight over huscarle wasn't just down to "Old William" Who's horsemen were chucking as many spears as they were couching them. The problem was 8/10 A highly mobile, well trained and disciplined force will out manouver and thus often defeat a less mobile force. Huscarle armies couldn't manouver well. So could be easily out flanked and needed to sit on top of a big hill or have well protected flanks to have much chance against a cavalry force. Plus foot troops tire quicker. The root of the legend of King Arthurs knights is probably based on how a Britannic cavalry force repeatedly beat an army of Saxon Huscarles, Saxons who were being driven west by the knock on effect of the Hunic invasions (more guys on horses).
But thats just history and modding can be easy and fun. I introduced Elephants for some of the Muslim factions just coz they look cool.

Yah, I was mildly disappointed that the Gallowglasses in the game were the Scottish style, as opposed to the Scandinavian style, although I got the impression that the former was far more common.

As for cavalry vs infantry, manouver isn't everything, else we wouldn't have had the very common practice of knights dismounting to fight on foot until the closing stages of battle, because of the vulnerability of the horse in large-scale combat. What I'd opinion is the major problem for trained & disciplined infantry in dealing with cavalry is that in general they have to have a critical mass of troops to be able to stand against the horsemen. The cavalry need to be able to punch through the infantry before the momentum of their charge runs out thus avoiding the increased vulnerability of horse & rider when fighting at close quarters; to counter this the infantry need deep enough ranks to slow & halt the cavalry in their midst. If the infantry don't have enough numbers to be able to present massed ranks - in all directions if necessary - then they are far more vulnerable to a charge by even a small number of horsemen breaking and then scattering their lines.

Another problem for infantry facing cavalry is that they generally can't actually defeat them unless the cavalry are willing or dumb enough to attack. The greater mobility of the cavalry does allow them to dictate if battle occurs or not. Except in circumstances where the infantry can somehow force engagement, the best they can achieve is stalemate.

As you noted, the Norman cavalry primarily threw their spears at the time of Hastings, although this proved relatively ineffective against the Saxon shieldwall, and it was only the ill-discipline of the fyrd followed by the loss of morale at Harold's death that led to the eventual Norman victory. The Normans however still had the perception that their horsemen were a decisive weapon, else why bother with the not inconsiderable effort of bringing horses by sea rather than acquiring them locally after landing. This perception would have been reinforced after the victory at Hastings both in the Normans own minds and those of other Western nobles and military. Add in that only the relatively wealthy could afford a horse and you have a further bias to perceiving cavalry as elite. With the belief in the horseman's supremacy the perceived counter would be another horseman, leading to the escalation in arms and armour that changed the Norman knight from moderately armoured & primarily spear-armed to heavily armoured & lance-armed, with the increased effectiveness against infantry unable or unwilling to stand and face the cavalry being almost a side-benefit.

Once the effectiveness of disciplined infantry against cavalry was realized, or rediscovered, the prospects for the knight and their beloved mounted charge were gloomy. In a way the method of fighting eventually went full circle, at least as far as the English are concerned, with huscarles fighting with axes being surplanted by the mounted knight, who was then forced to revert to fighting on foot with the poleaxe a favored weapon. The French for one proved far more stubborn, their noblility fixated on the perceived glory of the mounted charge despite their repeated defeats to the lowly footslogger.

[katank]

medmod gives ye ole armored huscarles.

that might whet your appetite.

billmen killing tanks would be funny.

reminds me of the stupid civ combat random generator which made my tank lose to a spearman!

I don't know if the troop types are all that matters. tactics is another thing. In Napoleonic times, infantry can easily defeat cavalry while in square but would be soundly trounced if in line.

combined arms can thus present the enemy with a dilemma of facing superior infantry fire to lose the missile duel if you are in square or risk getting charged down by cav if in line.

[eadeater]

reminds me of the stupid civ combat random generator which made my tank lose to a spearman!

.

Yeah, that is one of the most random things in Civ. Tanks losing to spearmen is ridiculous, but I can just about imagine how that might happen, but when your nuclear submarine tries to torpedo a galley, and gets sunk, my imagination fails. I simply can't see it happening, torpedo inevitably hits the galley (which moves slower than i walk probably), which gets completely obliteratied, but one lucky sailor survives, swims hundreds of metres to the sub, which has now dived, holds his breath, survives compression/decompression, swims to the sub, using his inhuman strength and pissed off attitude, tears off the hatch, and punches a few holes in the armoured hull, and swims up to the surface. He then fixes the galley with errr, seaweed or something, and using his voodoo magic ressurects his crew, and happily sails on? Huh, I doubt it somehow. Maybe someone has a different idea on how a galley can sink a nuclear sub?

[munrock]

It's been said that the pure slowness of a Biplane would pose a difficulty for modern air2air aircraft. Or maybe it was difficult for heat seeking missiles to track a biplane. Whatever, the only unit that will never grow obsolete is the ninja. Battlefield Ninja Elephants especially... they're so good that they've never been spotted.

[Sinner]

I don't know if the troop types are all that matters. tactics is another thing. In Napoleonic times, infantry can easily defeat cavalry while in square but would be soundly trounced if in line.

That would depend if the infantry are lined up ready to fire with good officers to get the timing right & disciplined troops who obey their officers & hold their fire until ordered - in which case the footsloggers will be eating horsemeat steaks for supper. The cavalry should counter by pulling away & starting to try & flank the infantry, but then the infantry can counter that by forming into a square, etc.

combined arms can thus present the enemy with a dilemma of facing superior infantry fire to lose the missile duel if you are in square or risk getting charged down by cav if in line.

Combined arms is always the way to go where possible, artillery plus cavalry were death for the infantry... for MTW, I'd guess archers plus cavalry would be more appropriate.

It's been said that the pure slowness of a Biplane would pose a difficulty for modern air2air aircraft. Or maybe it was difficult for heat seeking missiles to track a biplane.

The slow speed would be a big problem, but since modern fighters can and do shoot down helicopters which have similar top speeds to WW1 biplanes it wouldn't be impossible. Not too sure about the heat seeker, since they are effective against modern piston engined aircraft, but I'm not sure if the weaker engines used on WW1 biplanes have as strong an IR signature. Same for radar guided missiles, although modern ones are designed to be able to track low radar signature targets. Not that it matters, because a peasant would have already brought the biplane down with his pitchfork.

[Daveybaby]

Chances are that all a modern jet would need to do would be fly *near* a biplane and it would be torn apart by turbulence , or even set on fire by afterburners!

w.r.t. the battle of hastings - the axemen actually performed pretty well - pretty much the only reason that harold lost is because his men were undisciplined - the normans repeatedly performed fake charges and retreats, and when small numbers of impetuous axemen broke ranks and charged down off of the ridge to chase them, they were slaughtered piecemeal in the open by the normal knights. General consensus is that if the Saxons had held their far superior defensive position, the normans would have lost.

So i dont know if you can assume that the changes came about because of one battle - these things changed gradually over hundreds of years - a gradual evolutionary progression, which MTW doesnt really simulate.

[katank]

If it's evolutionary, why can't my units get upgraded for a price or if they surpass a certain valor threshold to superior units?

you might be able to change v4 feudal knights to v3 chivalrics etc.

[Daveybaby]

Well, like i said, MTW doesnt simulate it. It just gives you a set of 'idealised' units which were available at certain periods of history. In reality the nature of these units was constantly changing and evolving.

Admittedly you also get revolutionary changes due to new technology - gunpowder being the obvious example, but the evolutionary stuff is also there - its usually a large number of smaller steps which make up the changes.

[Sinner]

w.r.t. the battle of hastings - the axemen actually performed pretty well - pretty much the only reason that harold lost is because his men were undisciplined - the normans repeatedly performed fake charges and retreats, and when small numbers of impetuous axemen broke ranks and charged down off of the ridge to chase them, they were slaughtered piecemeal in the open by the normal knights. General consensus is that if the Saxons had held their far superior defensive position, the normans would have lost.

So i dont know if you can assume that the changes came about because of one battle - these things changed gradually over hundreds of years - a gradual evolutionary progression, which MTW doesnt really simulate.

The huscarles - the 'professional' warriors in Harold's army - mostly did keep their ranks, it was the fyrd - the rank & file 'militia' who served for a couple of months per year - that were the ones who broke ranks, getting slaughtered & thus weakening the Saxon's numbers until eventually the Norman's could stage a successful assault during their last gasp wave of attacks with Harold's death being the final blow.

As for the story that the Norman forces faked retreats, that is considered unlikely - not impossible, but unlikely. William was leading what was in effect an adhoc force made up of various nationalities and groups lured by the promise of loot, complicating the task of coordinating them. In their very first advance the Normans failed to keep in line, with one wing getting ahead of the others and being routed by the Saxons before the remainder of the Norman forces could intervene. This example of poor command & control indicates that it would be unlilkely that fake retreats would have been possible in the heat of battle due to the danger of them turning into actual routs.

The idea of the fake retreats comes from the Norman chronicler of the battle, and it's likely that he wanted to avoid tarnishing the victory by admitting that the Normans broke at least twice only to be rallied by their leaders. The feigned retreat tale was commonly used by the victors of a battle to mask any embarassment that part or all of their army nearly or actually ran away.

[katank]

supposedly it was after noticing that the fyrd gave chase to being out of position and getting isolated and massacred from the initial Norman rout that the Normans started feigning retreats.

supposedly it's possible to do so with William's cavalry to perform such a task of feigning retreats but not actually routing.

[Ironside]

Yeah, that is one of the most random things in Civ. Tanks losing to spearmen is ridiculous, but I can just about imagine how that might happen, but when your nuclear submarine tries to torpedo a galley, and gets sunk, my imagination fails. I simply can't see it happening, torpedo inevitably hits the galley (which moves slower than i walk probably), which gets completely obliteratied, but one lucky sailor survives, swims hundreds of metres to the sub, which has now dived, holds his breath, survives compression/decompression, swims to the sub, using his inhuman strength and pissed off attitude, tears off the hatch, and punches a few holes in the armoured hull, and swims up to the surface. He then fixes the galley with errr, seaweed or something, and using his voodoo magic ressurects his crew, and happily sails on? Huh, I doubt it somehow. Maybe someone has a different idea on how a galley can sink a nuclear sub?

The galley doesn't need to win, they simply need to not lose. The nuclear sub missed the gally, accidently hit another nuclear sub (if they are a squad), and/or one the torpedoes exploded inside the sub. See it's easy.

[eadeater]

and/or one the torpedoes exploded inside the sub. See it's easy.

Ahhh, very clever, the galley didn't even need to know that the sub was there, the torpedo malfunctioned. Heh, why didn't I think of that myself ?

[CherryDanish]

The idea of the fake retreats comes from the Norman chronicler of the battle, and it's likely that he wanted to avoid tarnishing the victory by admitting that the Normans broke at least twice only to be rallied by their leaders. The feigned retreat tale was commonly used by the victors of a battle to mask any embarassment that part or all of their army nearly or actually ran away.

Interesting and very likely the truth as the victor often rewrites history.

The AI tried this on me last night feigning with mounted sergants, my archers had a field day and their whole army routed and broke. I finally got some good use that day from my hobilars that I had held behind my spearwall and I chased down hundreds of fleeing Germans. The lesson here on offense is don't feign cav attacks against a hardened position backed by a significant number of missle troops. On defense the lesson is sometimes it's better to get distracted micromanaging a distant unit and neglect your main troop body so you don't get suckered into chasing down fast cavalry and getting butchered yourself ;).

[munrock]

In Civ, you can build the Biggest Baddest army 200 years ahead of its time, then march up to a primitive nothing of a nation and demand they hand over the city they planted in the corner of your island empire. Then they'd tell you to naff off, and when you siezed it by force, a speaman would trounce your marines and tanks.

The only thing good about Civ was the diplomacy, and funnily enough the dimplomacy in Rome looks like it will be very similar. Bonus.

[katank]

yep. the diplomacy is my biggest complaint about MTW.

now, if they would fix naval combat, the world would be perfect.

wonder if they'll bring back movies like in Shoggy?

[munrock]

yep. the diplomacy is my biggest complaint about MTW.

now, if they would fix naval combat, the world would be perfect.

wonder if they'll bring back movies like in Shoggy?

I don't think they will. The 3D characters on the map are animated.

[Rivelin]

I don't know if the troop types are all that matters. tactics is another thing. In Napoleonic times, infantry can easily defeat cavalry while in square but would be soundly trounced if in line.

combined arms can thus present the enemy with a dilemma of facing superior infantry fire to lose the missile duel if you are in square or risk getting charged down by cav if in line.

Not always... Infantry can sometimes stand up to cav charges in a line. The stand of the 93rd Highlanders at Balaclava in 1854 makes great reading.

The Russian force of 25,000 rode down the road to Balaklava. It was countered, in part, by a clash with the British Heavy Cavalry, who charged uphill, led by the apparently fearless Sir James Scarlett. The rest of the Russian force (approx 5000 men) went on to charge the 93rd (approx 500 men).

Campbell is said to have told his men, "There is no retreat from here, men. You must die where you stand." Sir Colin's aide John Scott is said to have replied, "Aye, Sir Colin. If needs be, we'll do that." Campbell formed the 93rd into a line two deep --- the "thin red line" --- and had the regiment wait until very close quarters before the first line fired. The Russians continued to advance, and Campbell had his men wait until no more than 500 yards lay between the Highlanders and the charging Russians to fire the second volley. This broke the Russian charge. At that, some of the Highlanders started forward for a charge, but Sir Colin stopped them with a cry of "93rd, damn all that eagerness!"

It was the London Times correspondent, William H. Russell, who wrote that he could see nothing between the charging Russians and the British base of operations at Balaklava but the "thin red streak tipped with a line of steel" of the 93rd. Popularly condensed into "the thin red line", the phrase became a symbol, rightly or wrongly, for British sang-froid in battle.

When asked afterwards about his 'unconventional' tactics the commander replied that knowing the 93rd he didn't think it was worth the trouble of forming a square. lol

[Plantagenet]

I also replace all the starting peasants with the various types of basic spearmen, so it means I rarely encounter them in my campaigns outside of rebellions, especially since I also mod most regions to have a greater starting infrastructure, something that greatly aids the AI in developing and deploying the more advanced troops, giving my armies something more interesting to chew on.

Thats a great idea. Not only do I not use them, but I hate having to fight them because its just too easy. Thanks for the idea; I'm gonna do that in my next campaign.

[katank]

@ rivelin, I meant that in general, with good tactics, cav should trump infantry in line.

if the russian cav weren't so darn scared of british troops and had flanking forces etc., you'd find it difficult to guard a line from all sides whereas square is better.

Also, Highlanders are not what I consider regular infantry. they are more like jedi units. reminds me of Italian medmod units such as pavisiers whereas pinned, flanked, and rear attacked, they'd form some pretzel formation without losing their rank bonus and proceed to slaughter and rout half my army.