Should knights have secondary weapon?

[sunsmountain]

This is a no brainer, unless the knights are not using lances at the charge (which were discarded afterwards), and using their "secondary" sword/mace (gothic!) straight away. Even then it's easy to strap another handheld weapon on your horse in case the first gets broken during the charge or first few (hard) hits.

[Husar]

I think they should require three graphicscards and a physicscard for the game to run at all, this way they can make the units very high poly and physically calculate every breaking lance, maybe the abundance of calculation power will also be sufficient to simulate the knights´ thoughts and feelings and affect the way they use their weapons.

[B-Wing]

Hey, I think you're on to something, Husar! A physics card... I've never heard of them before, but somebody should definitely make one!

[Husar]

Hey, I think you're on to something, Husar! A physics card... I've never heard of them before, but somebody should definitely make one!

http://www.ageia.com/

[B-Wing]

http://www.ageia.com/

Wow, that's pretty dang cool! I guess it won't be long before we all have to buy physics cards in order to play the latest games.

[Archayon]

About the lances, maces, knives, swords and stuff ...

if CA really wants to be historical accurate, they should be thinking of this:
(and please remind that i'm only speaking about west-european knights)

Use of lances: in War

When war was fought in the 10th-13th century, the army (west-eu) consisted mostly of the lord/king/whatever who felt himself obliged to start a battle, and many of his vassals (being knights). All those knights (king included) brought a small group of other mounted troops, each like 4-5 shield-bearers, maybe some other troops, but most of all a LOT of peasants, working on their lands. This last category carried every weapon they could possibly possess, mostly tools used for agriculture, (think about axes, pitch-forks, scythes, ...) but some nations could wield bows (like in England, where men used to train with them on sundays after church).
Sometimes, some major cities in regions with a lord fighting in the battle, could send troops (from 2nd half of 13th century and further on), sometimes allied to their lord, sometimes enemies, depending on their relationship with him, their own power as a city and the privileges they were waiting for.
(let's forget a while about the train, the whole group of engineers, servants, whores, ... following the army).
Sometimes there were a lot mercenaries. Most times, they were infantry armoured to the teeth, or crossbowmen (often Swiss, Burgundian or Italian troops).
The purpose was to keep the battlefield until the next day.

In M1TW-language, we could say: some royal knights (sometimes), most of the times some feudal knights and mounted nobles (shield bearers? ), vanilla archers, LOTS of peasants and in some cases LOTS of urban militia. In most battles in those times, there weren't that much spearmen.

Let's take a closer look at the mounted units (that's where we are interested at, aren't we?). Most of them, especially the higher classes (not the nobles, but the knights), were carrying lances. When they had to fight, they could fight against 3 kind of troops:

(archers were mostly used for initial shootings, decreasing morale, making it easier to get the enemy routing)
- other mounted units. I don't really know much about lances for them, but i don't think they were used much, maybe for an initial charge (imagine fighting with a 10-15ft lance in close melee...). Weapons like maces,
- peasant: in close formations, lances pointing ahead, the ground shaking of a few 100s horses (think about horse + armoured man = 600-750 kg, that"s 1200-1500 lb?) at mediocre speed, most peasant units didn't stand long. Just try to stop those tanks! After an initial contact, knights returned, charged again (with lances, most times a couple ft longer than pitch-forks and scythes), until the peasants routed. THAT's what lances were used for!
When armoured, the knights were pretty save fighting peasants.
(of course, in many battles peasants tried to secure themselves with stakes planted in the ground
- mercenaries. not bounded by any consequences of their deeds (they already received the money), they always looked for the best opportunity to fight. I can imagine they could give the knights a hard time. Usually, peasants (and urban militia) engaged them, sometimes the knights followed the routers, but not always, because mercenaries weren't captured, they were slaughtered, by order of the church.

Note about the peasant and UM: their status changed in 1302, when the fine fleur chivalric army of France fought the Flemish (almost without knights, only UM from Bruges, Courtrai, Ypres, ...) at the Battle of Courtrai, and LOST. This was because the UM had the idea of sticking together, defended by pointed wooden sticks in the ground and heavy maces in their hands (called "goedendags"), and were forced to keep formation at all costs. Imagine a horse, storming a bunch of weakly armoured peasants and UM, but with pointing sticks, keeping formation (think of a unit of spearman in M1TW on hold formation instead of loose, not on hold). The horse will prance (?) in the end, shaking the knight off his back. This knight, chained on the ground due to his heavy armour, was killed by those "peasants who do not know the rules of battle".

The most important reason for a knight to take part in a battle, was the opportunity to become rich in 1 day (ransom is what i mean). Of course, there was always risk, but the richer the knights were, the smaller the risk became (they bought armour when they could afford it). Knights didn't fight often to death. In a defending position, they were surrounded by their servants and shield-bearers. Once they were dead/captured/distracted, the knight just fought until he saw an enemy knight of a certain status to hand over his sword (they don't wanted the humiliation to be too big).


You'll probably already know this almost better than me, but my point is this:
in war: lances were used :

- against peasant to make them rout (including archers, who were useless after an initial shooting, unless they were on a high, well-defended position)
- against other knights: maybe on a initial charge, but the sword, the axe and the mace were much more important here. (maces were most often used by mounted MONKS, who were not admitted to wield weapons, in their eyes: "carving weapons like sword, dagger, axe", i could give you many examples of this).
- mostly they didn't fight mercenaries at all. Peasants an UM did it.


Use of lances: on tournaments

You all should keep in mind that tournaments (like in the picture in post 1 of this thread, if someone can edit my post and quote it here, please go ahead :) ) were very, VERY rare (did i mention they were rare?). They are an invention of the 18th and 19th century romanticist, due to misinterpretation of the sources, and LOTS of fantasy.
There WERE tournaments, but they were a lot different.
Think of a real-time war battle, on a few square miles, with this alterations:

- not being fought in war time, but on invitation, between members of the same court
- few square miles battlefield (5-30), with lots of hiding places, hills, ... with clearly marked or agreed borders.
- no UM, much fewer peasants
- no mercenaries (except for the few semi-independent warlords, who used to let themselves hired in war, but who wanted to receive some status at the court)
- farms in the territory with innocent peasants, harvesting their crops, just made the "game" more fun
- it was all about hiding, ambushing, and CAPTURING. Making money was the purpose, and also gaining skill, status and fame. Someone was called "brave" because of those tournaments.

Many of those tournaments we know of have taken part in France.

Lances are pretty useless in such a tournament, because they could kill someone easily. I even think i've read somewhere lances with iron points were prohibited, but i'm not sure. Of course, there were wounded men, often someone got killed, but this was more by "accident", and the aggressor could receive the vice "ruthless".




About M2TW

Keeping all this thinks in mind, i would like to see in M2TW:

- knights having a secondary weapon, being a sword, axe or mace depending on what kind of knights they are.
- charging with lances, high charge "points"
- melee with lances: impossible, or with a serious attack penalty.
- knights on defence: fighting with secondary weapon instead of lances.

and also:
- impossibility to capture mercenaries (flee or die )
- possibility to gain valour without fighting a war (in-game tournament option), maybe an agreed non-war battle between 2 factions, an extra possibility to gain money
- ransoms are taken away from your treasury (maybe partly, because the local peasants did pay most of it). Think of France during the 100-yrs war, not being able to field a massive army because of the depleted treasury, kept empty by continuous ransoms for their captured knights.





lots of reading ... plz don't mind my crappy english




Arch

[Archayon]

Sorry but i can't edit.

Just wanted to say that i also would like some kind of baggage train being part of engaging armies. They were subject of heavy looting during battles, used to make blockades, and were often as heavy defended as the standard.
In many battles, the baggage train was a major factor, and the cause of many movements of units.



Also, this message and the one above are just my opinion. Don't want to accuse/embarrasse someone, feel free to discuss ...


Arch