New Unit at the com: Armoured Swordsmen

[edyzmedieval]

Looks ok the guy. I don't like his helmet and his sword.

Looks like a Napoleon's Wars units...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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.

But they won't try to correct the gameplay flaw - and it sounds like you accept that.

[Woad Warrior]

"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.

I don't particularly care about the unit's description, but it makes it pretty clear that if CA's writers fill in unit descriptions with stuff that sounds like they probably just made up on the spot, just because it looked like it might make sense; this shows that they haven't even tried to put any research in. This is one of the units they're putting up on display, so they probably even put a little extra effort into making it. If they write such nonsense for a display unit, we can only wonder what they're going to come up with for the rest. I just hope that rubbish about not being able to afford horses isn't an indication of whats to come.

And I agree with you in that it was probably better to admitt the unit is historically inaccurate than admitt it is a basic foot knight and the dismount feature will be missing. But this shows that with this unit, CA have revealed their lack of research, so, particularly with it being a display unit, we can guess that little research has gone into the other units aswell, and this will no doubt be affected in their appearance and how they perform, as well as their less significant unit descriptions.

[screwtype]

Not necessarily. Different research teams can sometimes come up with different conclusions.

Someone one this thread already confirmed that the English basically had to import their warhorses and that they were prohibitively expensive, so arguably CA's research on this point is accurate.

Personally, I find it hard to believe someone who could afford all that nice armour could not afford a good horse to go with it, but then, I'm hardly an expert on the period.

[A.Saturnus]

I'm not so much worried about the unit design. Whether the sword looks like a gladius is rather secundary. The danger I see here is the impact such units may have on the gameplay. Foot knights were pretty common in late medieval period but I'm a bit afraid that we're going to see the sword-and-shield formations from Medieval I again throughout the time period. If this unit is about a higher-class troop type we'll see in the later game as addition to standard infantry, then it's ok, but in early and high medieval times the main foot units were spears and later pikes and halberds, but not swords. I hope that this is reflected better in M2TW than in MTW.

[Watchman]

At least in Italy there existed armoured "light" (ie. well armoured and armed for melee, but more mobile than the otherwise pretty similar closer-order spearman types) close-combat infantry, and I know HYW sources seem make lots of references to different types of apparently relatively "heavy" troops that don't really give the impression of being closed-rank spearmen. So it's not really that far-fetched actually.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well the skirt looks something from Kotor and the lack of cloth on the back is stupid. The sword is probably some cut-and-paste from another unit.

Its bad but it could be loads worse lads.

[anti_strunt]

At least in Italy there existed armoured "light" (ie. well armoured and armed for melee, but more mobile than the otherwise pretty similar closer-order spearman types) close-combat infantry, and I know HYW sources seem make lots of references to different types of apparently relatively "heavy" troops that don't really give the impression of being closed-rank spearmen. So it's not really that far-fetched actually.

Other than dismounted men-at-arms and billmen/voulgiers? If you want some super-heavy infantry you should have to dismount your knights, those were the options a medieval general had (provided he could convince his knights to dismount, of course...).

[Servius]

If any know me, they know I'm no appologist for CA. However, on the sword, I think it clearly conflicts with the "longsword" mentioned in the text, so the text or the image is probably wrong, and CA will probably fix it. You're right, it's totally a Gladius, or a Saxon short sword. Very broad isn't it? Maybe a Bastard Sword.

As far as the dismounting, I think they just mean that this swordman is as tough as a knight, but not a knight, the same way Chiv Men-at-Arms were (or at least looked) like dismounted knights, but MTW still had true knights and they could dismount.

CA does seem to have a bad trackrecord or removing cool feature from previous games, but hopefully they will leave the dismounting feature in, and even better, allow cavalry to dismount during battle, not just before it. Shouldn't be able to remount though, unless their squires follow them and hold on to their horses while they're not using them.

[Barbarossa1221]

Looks pretty cool to me, except for the sword, it does look a lot like a gladius not like those beautiful medieval long swords I would be used to seeing.
But other than that he looks smashing.

[Furious Mental]

" But they won't try to correct the gameplay flaw - and it sounds like you accept that"

Indeed, because whining about it on a forum will not make them change it and is therefore a waste of my time. However I get the impression that alot of people see whining as an end in itself and therefore carry on doing it irrespective of the futility of the exercise vis-a-vis the final state of the game.

[Duke John]

Indeed, because whining about it on a forum will not make them change it and is therefore a waste of my time.

What would you rather read? Dozens of posts all praising the model?

[Furious Mental]

It makes no difference to me because I don't read all the posts, at least not when the thread consists of people arguing endlessly over a unit description. I'm just pointing out the fact that it makes no difference how much people complain about the ahistorical style of Total War games. The fact that every Total War game has been a best seller is of much more importance to the developers and publishers of the franchise than the fact that every Total War game has been panned by history enthusiasists for things like head hurling British warriors. Ergo, while I might find many things about the games to be ridiculous, I have to accept them because all my rage will not make one iota of difference to the final product. And the same goes for the rest of you. If someone wants to do something constructive I would suggest supporting a mod of some kind through whatever means they can.

[anti_strunt]

It makes no difference to me because I don't read all the posts, at least not when the thread consists of people arguing endlessly over a unit description. I'm just pointing out the fact that it makes no difference how much people complain about the ahistorical style of Total War games. The fact that every Total War game has been a best seller is of much more importance to the developers and publishers of the franchise than the fact that every Total War game has been panned by history enthusiasists for things like head hurling British warriors. Ergo, while I might find many things about the games to be ridiculous, I have to accept them because all my rage will not make one iota of difference to the final product. And the same goes for the rest of you. If someone wants to do something constructive I would suggest supporting a mod of some kind through whatever means they can.

Which is why I'm writing up a suggestion for Medieval Auctoriso as we speak.