New Unit at the com: Armoured Swordsmen

[Duke John]

Sometimes I really wonder why artists lean so much on their artistical freedom. History is right there, they just need to go to a museum or open a book and appreciate the real thing. But no, they need to come up with their own designs, ignoring any reality check.

Worthless.

English men-at-arms had the problem of not having a large pool of good warhorses. They had to imported from other countries which of course raised the price. As a result the average quality of the warhorses of the English knights was less. If anything it would mean that mounted English Knights have worse stats.

[Watchman]

All true men-at-arms, whether they were officially knights or not (after Early Middle Ages that was mostly a social title anyway), had a warhorse. Plus aty least one horse they rode outside the battle, the warhorse being only mounted for actual combat (that's where the figure of speech about "mounting your high horse", or getting off it, apparently comes from AFAIK). Then there was also a baggage horse, and men-at-arms of the period the man's gear points to were axpected to furnish a full "lance" (a squire or other lighter trooper plus two archers or crossbowmen plus at least one more guy, all mounted even if only on riding horses).

Men-at-arms were all-purpose troops who could fight equally on foot and on horseback; as the Hundred Years' War progressed, the former became increasingly the norm.

The fellow in the preview, however, apparently isn't a true MAA. He seems to be a representative of the higher end of a type of heavy infantry that did *not* fight in close-order blocks with spears, although such "light" infantry (the term used with considerable reservation here) almost invariably carried spears or polearms as their initial weapons and tended to leave out some or all leg armour in favor of mobility and agility.

I'll admit his sword looks more than a bit weird, though. It doesn't resemble a gladius so much as some early Iron Age designs I've seen in illustrations. Moreover, his body armour's odd; its appereance suggests coat-of-plates, commonly worn over mail before proper plate developed, but AFAIK those normally wrapped around the body. The sort of support strap system he has would look quite at home on the types of Napoleonic cuirassieurs who didn't get bac plates, or a late-medieval or Renaissance pikeman (who often didn't bother with the weight and expense of a back plate).

[Zenicetus]

Hmmm.... the main thing I find reality-bending about this unit, is the idea that anyone could march very far on foot in that getup. Maybe we're supposed to imagine that they have squires that help carry the armor on foot, and the "gentry" straps it on, just before the battle?

[Watchman]

That was the normal practice for heavier troops. Leg defenses in particular, as well as any "strapped on" top layers, were gladly carried on the baggae horses and such until needed.

[Gaulgath]

Why is everyone already butchering the game? It hasn't even come out yet and your complaing that "OH NOES, TEH ARMOUR IS .000000001 OFF. TEH SUX!!!!" Does such a tiny little error matter in such a huge scale game? No. And you all forgot to cite your sources for this stupidity.

[Watchman]

Goes under the heading "general education and literacy on the topic." Since much of it (or mine, anyway) is based on information amalgamated from numerous different sources - books, essays, museum visits, reasonably reliable WWW sites corroborated by other data - a "bibliography" would be distinctly pointless.

As is asking for one.

[Midnight]

Well, I'm not exactly knowledgeable when it comes to medieval warfare, but the mail visible at the back and the cloth visible on the chest looks very peculiar (even if it is obviously held on by the crossing straps on the back). The sword also looks odd.

Quick question - would the 'skirt' thing get in the way\be vulnerable to being trapped, being so low at the back as it is?

[Watchman]

Probably not. It's not like people who got behind such armoured juggernauts wouldn't have better things to do anyway, like stabbing them in the back as there's only mail for protection there...

It was quite common, indeed almost the norm, for the "skirt" of armour, be it the hem of a mail hauberk or the separate laminated "skirt" (can't recall the term) of plate, to hang quite low. If any robes, coats, jupons, or whatever worn under or over it also reached that long or longer was largely a question of current military fashion - and one presumes professional warriors wouldn't have been into fashions that actually hindered their battlefield survivability.

That said, the pointy "tail" of that outer garment looks pretty weird.

[hellenes]

While I disagree with this whole 10 years olds' catering fantasy fest Ive understood that its the ENGINE and NOT the game that CA is selling for people to modify...I just wonder why they waste all that cash on 3d designers and artists when they can simply release the bare code and modders will make a game for them for free.

Hellenes

[Woad Warrior]

Yeah the skirt thing looks pretty absurd.

This is where CA's argument that perfect historical accuracy would harm gameplay goes out the window. Instead of saying "he can't afford a horse", why can't they tell the truth, that "he chose to dismount". In what way would writing that detract from gameplay? After the incredible amounts of effort that must have went into those graphics and all the other features, why can't they just do a little bit of research to make the game that big bit better by making it historically accurate?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

They are suggesting its much more than ".000000001" off. They're saying the unit is unrealistic and unlikely from both a historic and common-sense point of view. This is generally a bad thing in a game that lifts so much from history.

What would cool is if a single knight led a group of squires and lesser mounted troops. I'm pretty sure that's how it was done, at least in parts. The Tuetonic Knights would have a full knight leading a bunch of poorer mounted soldiers in a unit called a banner, I think.

[Gaulgath]

They are suggesting its much more than ".000000001" off. They're saying the unit is unrealistic and unlikely from both a historic and common-sense point of view. This is generally a bad thing in a game that lifts so much from history.

Well, your changing history anyway in this game, aren't you?

[spmetla]

well the webpage title for me says 2handed yet a see a longsword man which puzzles me (perhaps it wasn't supposed to be the present unit but they changed it last minute). The "longsword" is quite short (the sheath is longer than the blade or am I just seeing it wrong?) and doesn't seem to have much of a hilt and the left arm seems to be holding the shield quite low (opposed to gripping the straps near the top or middle of the shield).

The description speaks of plate armor but the torso and upper leg are chainmail instead? Also the full helm shouldn't actually be there, I've come to the understanding that full helms were primarily for mounted warriors when they charged because they only needed focus directly in front of them initially while the foot soldiers prefered open helms for more situational awareness. Besides it looks like the helm was just tacked on last minute, have a feeling it had an open helm at first.

And although I understand that they wanted red as the primary color with white secondary colors for the english units what they have on the shield is the standard for the Knights Hospitaller or the Knights of St John. If the colors were reversed or at least plain red it would be better.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Well, your changing history anyway in this game, aren't you?

Yes you are changing the history. But changing history do not mean changing completely everything.

With this type of thinking why not make da Vinci's flying machine unit that will bombard land troops?
Or da Vinci's Tank unit?