New Unit at the com: Armoured Swordsmen

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

http://www.totalwar.com/community/arm.htm

[anti_strunt]

So the English didn't fight dismounted as a cunning tactical device, but because they couldn't afford horses???

Humbug!

I was just starting to look forward to this game.

His sword looks stupid too.

[Moderator comment: edited for language]

[caravel]

Looks like some kind of Gladius, and not in any way medieval. Oh and he could afford the best armour and weapons, but the horse was stretching it a bit too much. The Hobilars and Mounted Sergeants could afford their's though, whcih must have cost nearly as much to feed and keep even if they were probably alot cheaper to aquire.

[anti_strunt]

So, wait, does this elaborate explanation for a completely foot-bound unit of English knights mean that cavalry will no longer be able to dismount? Because if they could, there would be no reason for this unit to exist, but since it does... Oh man.

[screwtype]

LOL, yeah the sword looks all wrong, like a Roman gladius. And I find it kind of hard to believe that someone could afford all that armour and not a horse to go with it!

Not too impressed with the helmet either. I hope we are not going to have too many full face helms in this game, I doubt their use was so widespread.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The unit will probably undergo change so nets worried too much just yet

[wraithdt]

I wasn't really impressed too; its just ok by my book. I agree with most of you about the sword and I also would have preferred an opened-face bascinet over what he's wearing now.

anti strunt: The description on the unit did not say that they're knights. Its says that they're minor gentries who couldn't afford horses thus denying them of that status. They're most likely elite 'swordsmen' like the chivalric men-at-arm in MTW and not knights.

[anti_strunt]

anti strunt: The description on the unit did not say that they're knights. Its says that they're minor gentries who couldn't afford horses thus denying them of that status. They're most likely elite 'swordsmen' like the chivalric men-at-arm in MTW and not knights.

Knight or not isn't really the point (and it's a moot point anyway, since unknighted gentry would usually serve in the same units on the battlefield, in the rear ranks). The argument itself is also pretty odd; it's ridiculous to think that these minor gentry people could afford a full panoply of armour, including a coat-of-plates and a (visored?) great helm and not a horse; a horse was a very important status symbol, and gentlemen would be very much more likely to buy less, cheaper armour for themselves than fight as footmen if money was short.

And there is of course the fact that there shouldn't be any such thing as elite foot swordmen in the first place...

[Furious Mental]

Christ all mighty- so much argument over a unit description. The idea behind the unit is obviously to have a heavily armoured bloke with a sword. Personally I don't care if the text file says they are "dismounted knights" or "minor gentry" or "suits of armour animated by the magic of the wizard bloody Merlin".

[Edited by moderator for language]

[lancelot]

I read somewhere once that a mounted knight was the medieval equivalent of a millionaire...this game is not representing (visually) the 2 or 3 squires or whatever the knightly helper-monkeys were called, that accompany each knight.

So I would consider the difference between gentry and knight as a notable distinction and hardly a moot point. To discount this would suggest that every man in the gentry had servants and what-not.

But Im no expert...

And that sword did look cack.

[A.Saturnus]

Knight or not isn't really the point (and it's a moot point anyway, since unknighted gentry would usually serve in the same units on the battlefield, in the rear ranks). The argument itself is also pretty odd; it's ridiculous to think that these minor gentry people could afford a full panoply of armour, including a coat-of-plates and a (visored?) great helm and not a horse; a horse was a very important status symbol, and gentlemen would be very much more likely to buy less, cheaper armour for themselves than fight as footmen if money was short.

And there is of course the fact that there shouldn't be any such thing as elite foot swordmen in the first place...

Chargers were very expensive and in the late medieval period many knights only rode to the battlefield but fought dismounted. In fact the scarceness of the heavy warhorses was one of the reasons the knights stopped dominating the battlefield. So this unit is that unrealistic. That said, I have my doubts whether foot knights (what they were) looked like that.

[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.

[anti_strunt]

So I would consider the difference between gentry and knight as a notable distinction and hardly a moot point. To discount this would suggest that every man in the gentry had servants and what-not.

Personally, I'd love to see the very variable quality of equipment within the broader troop cathegories present during the middle ages, so that a unit of "knights" would have both proper, heavily armoured knights "helper-monkeys" and lesser gentry in the same unit, as they would be. Though I suppose that would raise problems with balancing...
Even if the lesser gentry should be represented separately, it should still be as worse-quality knights, not as footmen.

Chargers were very expensive and in the late medieval period many knights only rode to the battlefield but fought dismounted. In fact the scarceness of the heavy warhorses was one of the reasons the knights stopped dominating the battlefield. So this unit is [not] that unrealistic. That said, I have my doubts whether foot knights (what they were) looked like that.

Well-bred warhorses were certainly very expensive (although there were of course cheaper alternatives), which is why the knights and gentlemen who would be hard pressed to maintain one often prefered to simply pay a sum of money to the king instead.
As for dismounting, I have always thought that it was because armies became more proffessional and tactically flexible, certainly French knights often swallowed their pride when the situation demanded it, after Agincourt. I have never read anything about a drought of good stock for warhourses having anything to do with it...

EDIT: Notice how his "skirt" isn't split at his back? I can see why he wouldn't want to get on a horse with that thing!

[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).

[Duke John]

There is a whole lot more wrong with his skirt. It goes over the chainmail, but the chainmail is visible at the back. This would mean that the skirt is stitched to the belt. Think about how the cloth would look on its own and how it is worn. It really is stupidly designed.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Peasant Phill]

I do believe that his torso is protected by plate armor, hence the straps on his back, but that it was painted or some cloth was attached to it.

The term 2handed probably refers to the first unit shown, the Zweihander

If that is a longsword, then a dagger would be the seize of a small Swiss armyknife. I understand that CA can't make every unit perfect or even decent in such a large game but they should make that effort for the once they display. Those are the things that should sell the game and it makes me fear for the quality of the other units that we won't see.
I don't want to be bashing CA but I was always thaught to deliver decent things if it is meant for display.

[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?

[anti_strunt]

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.

Very true about the open helmets while fighting on foot. Though looking at his helm again, I've just noticed that it looks more like a bascinet with the front end of a great helm for a visor than anything else. That's a pretty odd arrangement...

I do believe that his torso is protected by plate armor, hence the straps on his back, but that it was painted or some cloth was attached to it.

I dunno, I still think it looks more like a coat-of-plates, but CA could've given him a brigantine for all I know...

[Furious Mental]

"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?"

Why do you even care? It's just a unit description. But I think the answer to the question is pretty clear. As far as I know M2TW will not give the player the option to dismount cavalrymen- instead you get knights on horses and blokes who don't have horses. If the unit was described as a dismounted knight it would draw attention to the omission of the gameplay feature. No doubt CA considers it is better to get criticism for inaccurate unit descriptions than for a gameplay flaw.