desert battles

[gunslinger]

Has anyone heard whether units will be able to remove armor before a battle to avoid stamina penalties when fighting in the desert? Using stacks of militia sergeants (who should have been at home protecting their own cities) to take out the whole of Northern Aftrica and the Middle East was always a bit annoying in MTW.

Also, has anyone seen any good screenies of a big European Army fighting a big Muslim Army in the desert? If so, please post a link.

[poo_for_brains]

just go to gamespot pics, or most of the other screenshot pages - they all have pictures of crusade armies fighting in the desert. I don't hav the link, but it's in the screesnshot and video sticky.

[Ibn Munqidh]

I doubt it alot. Anyway, you can always hire mercenary units whom are capable of fighting in desert with relative ease.

[Crusader Invasion]

I don't even think there are desert penalties.

[Darth Nihilus]

I certianly hope there are penalties like the original. Brings back memories of me playing as the Byzantines and having the Kataphracts in the desert tire in like 1 minute because of their massive armour.

[Vladimir]

Not having heat effects in the game would be a game breaker. I'm not sure how it was in R:TW but if the Islamic factions have to contend with unhindered Catholics in the desert they'll be devestated.

[Peasant Phill]

I fear there won't be heat penalties. I can't prove it or anything, just a suspicion. I've seen fire arrows, cannons and muskets being used in the pouring rain so I fear that weather will have little to no effect on the battles.

I hope I'm wrong and that the video with the muskets, fire arrows and cannons in the rain was just for promotion or in an arcade setting. Those complexities were what made the battles fun and diverse.

[The Lord of Dance]

In MTW1 you couldnt use cannons while it was raining... they wouldnt change that.

Secondly, if it is light enough rain a flaming arrow will not go out... its going too fast.

[Peasant Phill]

In MTW1 you couldnt use cannons while it was raining... they wouldnt change that.

Secondly, if it is light enough rain a flaming arrow will not go out... its going too fast.

They changed a lot since MTW, among wich several things that were viewed (by us) as good already. Among these things the squeeze penalty and the combat speed. So why wouldn't CA change the weather effects if it makes the game 'more accessible for the average gamer'? (No CA bashing just referring to what CA said)
You're right about the flaming arrow in a drizzle (although lighting the arrow should be a hell of a job),I'm just saying I saw a M2TW video with firing canons, muskets and fire arrows when it was pouring (not a drizzle but a rainstorm).

[The Lord of Dance]

They changed a lot since MTW, among wich several things that were viewed (by us) as good already. Among these things the squeeze penalty and the combat speed. So why wouldn't CA change the weather effects if it makes the game 'more accessible for the average gamer'? (No CA bashing just referring to what CA said)
You're right about the flaming arrow in a drizzle (although lighting the arrow should be a hell of a job),I'm just saying I saw a M2TW video with firing canons, muskets and fire arrows when it was pouring (not a drizzle but a rainstorm).

Hmmm I think the weather effects will be implemented, but I could be wrong.

[Peasant Phill]

I hope it too

[gunslinger]

I've never gotten RTW due to all the bad reviews. I'm surprised to learn that they took away the heat penalties. I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that heat and lack of knowledge about the desert was the only thing that held the crusaders back.

[professorspatula]

There is a heat stat in RTW actually. But the battles are typically over before you notice the effects anyway.

[Oaty]

There is a heat stat in RTW actually. But the battles are typically over before you notice the effects anyway.

The big difference is you can fully recover back to a fresh state in RTW. I liked the heat penalties in RTW better than MTW. I thought the heat penalties in the desert were a little overboard. Especially the fact that one of the best troops to take in the desert were urban militia, no armour cheap and could recover fatigue quickly, kind of sick that I could take on any unit with them after the first wave. Also peasants beating the crap out of Halberdiers- meh. The worst IMO is that reenforcements came on with reduced fatigue and by the time they marched,not ran, they were exhausted.

I dont mind heavy-armour type troops not being able to recover to full freshness maybe warmedup, while unarmoured troops can recover to full freshness.

[Leet Eriksson]

Not having heat effects in the game would be a game breaker. I'm not sure how it was in R:TW but if the Islamic factions have to contend with unhindered Catholics in the desert they'll be devestated.

Islamic factions will get more balanced this time around(increased unit count, which probably means more unit variety, and probably buffed statistics for islamic units), much like the desert factions in RTW.

[Ulstan]

"I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that heat and lack of knowledge about the desert was the only thing that held the crusaders back"

I think the heat effect (and the awkwardness of european armor in general) is usually vastly overestimated. While I'm sure the picture of a knight who falls off his horse and can't even move a limb or stand up is terribly amusing, a few moments of reflection should tell us obviously this has to be an exaggeration. The European warriors were not fools and phased out armor quickly enough when firearms took over.

I'm sure we're all used to movies showing armor being more of a hindrance than a help, slowing one down but never ever stopping an arrow or turning a blade, but soldiers tend to be amongst the most practicable of people, because their life is on the line.

I think the biggest things that held the europeans back was poor knowledge of the area, atrociously bad logistics, being massively outnumbered, and the ridiculous infighting and bickering that their multinational groups engaged in at any opportunity.

Their heavily armored knights were an asset, and would routinely smash vastly larger arab formations if the latter would stand still like obliging fellows and let themselves get charged.

[Martok]

I'm sure we're all used to movies showing armor being more of a hindrance than a help, slowing one down but never ever stopping an arrow or turning a blade, but soldiers tend to be amongst the most practicable of people, because their life is on the line.

I think the biggest things that held the europeans back was poor knowledge of the area, atrociously bad logistics, being massively outnumbered, and the ridiculous infighting and bickering that their multinational groups engaged in at any opportunity.

Agreed; that's my thinking as well. Not that armor *didn't* factor into the equation somewhat, but I still believe it's importance/relavence is often overstated when compared to the other factors you just mentioned.

Their heavily armored knights were an asset, and would routinely smash vastly larger arab formations if the latter would stand still like obliging fellows and let themselves get charged.

Heh. I'm suddenly having flashbacks to when I first started fighting Muslim armies in MTW: "Gah! Just hold still, d*** you!"

[gunslinger]

As someone who has fought in the desert while wearing armor, I can tell you that it's no picnic, and I had the advantage of all the fresh water with which I could glut myself, decent food, and even some occasional air conditioning for relief. Even though my unit was from Illinois, where we typically see temps of 100 degrees F with high humidity in the Summer, we all spent the first two weeks in the desert collapsed in a puddle in our tent while we tried to acclimate, and it was still only springtime!

Heh. I'm suddenly having flashbacks to when I first started fighting Muslim armies in MTW: "Gah! Just hold still, d*** you!"

Funny, that's still the situation in real life. We are very much like the heavy European Armies (Slow, Heavy, and Unstoppable) while they just "won't stand still and take a charge," prefering instead to use hit and run tactics and nibble at the flanks. Who doesn't believe that history repeats itself, or that the way our ancestors lived and fought doesn't manifest itself in our mindset today?

[Watchman]

Something most folks seem to kind of forget is that around the early Crusading period quite a few of the better-equipped Middle Eastern warriors actually wore more armour than the Catholic newcomers (the prevalence of powerful composite bows and increasing numbers of annoyingly limb-severing sabres in the area may have had something to do with that). And it didn't get all that lighter later either. Cavalrymen might wear several mail hauberks and a lamellar corselet atop that for good measure...

One also needs to keep in mind the East Romans/Byzantines and first assorted locals (like the Palmyrans) and Persians (ie. Parthians and Sassanids) and later Muslim Arabs and Turks once they got access to enough manufacturing base kept gleefully throwing massively armoured cavalry at each other in the region for a long time, and kept doing so after the Crusaders had been served the eviction note. Mind you, the Mongols joined the fun for a while too. Armoured horses weren't exactly rare either, and I understand one of the biggest problems with barding even in milder climes tended to be heat exhaustion; yet the beasts down there appear to have markedly failed to keel over en masse due to heat strokes.

That doesn't of course mean less armour wouldn't be rather more comfortable, but one suspects popular commonplace rather overrates the heat issue (besides being rather ignorant of the actual military powers involved). I'm under the impression even very heavy troops were normally right fine so long as they covered most of the metal from direct sun (the local "Franks" adopted local styles of dress rather quickly no doubt partly for this end) and were supplied with enough water.

[Randarkmaan]

I don't think the heat penalties will be the same as what they were in MTW.
Anyway Islamic warriors were not as lightly armed our armoured as many often assume... Arab cavalrymen (not bedouin) for instance wore long mail hauberks, iron helmets (often with coifs or aventails), wielded lances and swords (straight up to the end of the 12th century, then the Arabs also started using sabres on a large scale) and carried shields (many of which were of kite construction). If you compare this to the equipment of a European cavalrymen up until the 13th century you will realize how strikingly similarily they are equipped. Farther east (in Persia and Trasnoxania) equipment was usually heavier than this and often included a horse with iron barding (lamellar or mail)

EDIT: Oh, seems like the above poster said exactly what I did...

I think the biggest things that held the europeans back was poor knowledge of the area, atrociously bad logistics, being massively outnumbered, and the ridiculous infighting and bickering that their multinational groups engaged in at any opportunity.

Their heavily armored knights were an asset, and would routinely smash vastly larger arab formations if the latter would stand still like obliging fellows and let themselves get charged.

The Crusaders weren't always massively outnumbered, though towards the end they were because the enthusiasm for Crusades had dropped in Europe and Europeans were far too busy killing each other (as most people in the world have been preoccupied with since the beginning of time). The sad thing (for the Crusader states) was that often when troops from Europe came they just raided some territory sieged a castle and went home whilst the Crusader States had to fight a war. Another thing that many do not know is that at Hattin Saladin used mostly only his 12,000 professional cavalrymen (who were mostly light cavalry, though about 4-5000 were heavy cavalry, the Crusaders numbered about 22 000 men of which about 5000 were heavy cavalry) the rest of his force (his infantry), which was mostly made up of volunteers were 'preserved' for siege warfare, though some were used at the end of the battle and some lit bonfires amongst the Crusaders while they were sleeping.

Anyway a charge by heavy cavalry, against a foe that is standing still and not braced properly for the attack (lacking spears, pikes, ditches... etc) will most of the time ride the opposition down, you must not forget that this happened with heavy cavalry charges against European armies as well. Also the Muslims used their heavy cavalry in a bit different way from the Europeans, their heavy cavalry usually covered the withdrawal of light harrasing cavalry (Ayyubids and other Turkish influenced armies), executed repeated charge and withdrawal attacks with a portion of their horsemen (nearly all, but not so much from the Turks), or used their heavy horsemen to cover an infantry advance (Fatimids and earlier Muslim armies), most of these tactics were similar to the ones used by the Byzantines. In pitched battles European heavy cavalry mostly relied on an all out charge with nearly everything they had, they lacked proper battlefield communications to use other tactics, this type of attack was terminal to the enemy if it succeded but it was very risky and if stopped often spelled certain disaster for the whole army. Also by the 13th century Mamluks were able to effectively halt a charge by Crusader heavy cavalry using horse-archery alone (not skirmishing mind you, horse-archers drawn up in ranks firing while standing still).

[Tarık]

"I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that heat and lack of knowledge about the desert was the only thing that held the crusaders back"

I think the biggest things that held the europeans back was poor knowledge of the area, atrociously bad logistics, being massively outnumbered, and the ridiculous infighting and bickering that their multinational groups engaged in at any opportunity.

Their heavily armored knights were an asset, and would routinely smash vastly larger arab formations if the latter would stand still like obliging fellows and let themselves get charged.

Ok since noone talks about realty and you definitely need this I'll tell you what happened.14 out of 16 crusades ended up in Europeans loss with terrible humiliation and some of them took place in Europe(means they never even reached the desert) But reality is different than what you have been told.It was Turks that pushed these 14 uncivilised and barbarous conqests without facing any difficulty.Your ancestors, dear Europeans knew why Turks were known as 'devils on the battlefield' and they had every right to fear Turks.It was in those days the saying 'Strong as a Turk' emerged.But unfortunately it appears you have forgotten about all of this since you haven't dared any crusades after 14 humiliations.If you had you would have known why Turks are still accepted by brainy people as the 'unstoppable and greatest warriors' ever.Because we fight not by bullets or cannons but with our heart which is something you shall never understand and therefore never know the truth.I hope you'll get a deeper knowledge about facts before you speak like blind men.By the way it was the fear of death why Europeans wore tank-like armor,while at the time Turks never even bothered since they didn't have to fear a blow as they knew it would come from weak arms of weak men.Therefore it was Europeans who stood still for a blow hoping their thick armor would protect them as it was their last chance.(unfortunately most of the time it didn't haha)

[Faenaris]

Ok since noone talks about realty and you definitely need this I'll tell you what happened.

You were there when it happend? Really?

14 out of 16 crusades

Sorry, there were only 8 crusades.

ended up in Europeans loss with terrible humiliation and some of them took place in Europe(means they never even reached the desert) But reality is different than what you have been told.It was Turks that pushed these 14 uncivilised and barbarous conqests without facing any difficulty.Your ancestors, dear Europeans knew why Turks were known as 'devils on the battlefield' and they had every right to fear Turks.It was in those days the saying 'Strong as a Turk' emerged.But unfortunately it appears you have forgotten about all of this since you haven't dared any crusades after 14 humiliations.If you had you would have known why Turks are still accepted by brainy people as the 'unstoppable and greatest warriors' ever.Because we fight not by bullets or cannons but with our heart which is something you shall never understand and therefore never know the truth.I hope you'll get a deeper knowledge about facts before you speak like blind men.

I suggest you gain a deeper knowledge of the facts yourself before you start accusing others.

By the way it was the fear of death why Europeans wore tank-like armor,while at the time Turks never even bothered since they didn't have to fear a blow as they knew it would come from weak arms of weak men.Therefore it was Europeans who stood still for a blow hoping their thick armor would protect them as it was their last chance.(unfortunately most of the time it didn't haha)

Not really. See, the Turks also wore armour. While they might be fearless, that won't stop an arrow from impaling you, an axe from chopping you up or a sword cutting you up. People who didn't wear armour (to any degree) were either poor, skirmishers or foolish in my oppinion.

[Ringeck]

Don't feed the troll.

[Watchman]

Skirmish tactics were typically relegated to Turkish or other steppe-nomad mercenaries those days anyway. They had the practical know-how for it, as well as the requisite herds of ponies for remounting after all the running around tired the beasts. Mind you, steppe skirmishers were always only too happy to don a shirt of mail or a lamellar corselet if they could get them too, and helmets were ubiquitous.

Having something more than a shirt and your rather frail human skin between your innards and the enemy's assorted pointy things sort of appeals to most sensible people. And the nomads were by and large very sensible and pragmatic folks.

The horse-archers of more sedentary nations - Arabs, Byzantines, the Mamluks of Egypt - normally fought in close order and didn't skirmish; they didn't have the remount pool to replace the tired horses the harassing tactics invariably produced, and thus relied on density and weight of fire and cohesive squadrons instead.

Anyway, Middle Eastern shock cavalry was usually sort of "dual purpose" - many doubled as mounted archers - and favoured hit-and-run tactics of controlled charges and withdrawals repeated until the enemy broke. This had the plus side of preserving great degree of tactical maneuverability. Conversely their European colleagues were pure shock specialists trained to (hopefully) smash the enemy formation with a single massed charge with couched lances (a spear-wielding technique, incidentally, which the Easterners also knew and used; the Arabs called it "Syrian attack"). They were in a sense giant battlefield projectiles, and their emphasis on linear attack tactics left them somewhat unwieldy. This duly led to the peculiar battlefield dynamic where the Muslims tried to goad the Franks (as the Europeans were generally called) into committing the charge inefficiently, and the Franks strove to hold it until a suitable tactical opportunity presented itself. A natural side effect was that the armies of the Crusader Kingdoms were by far more disciplined and controllable than their peers back in Europe, and had rather better honed practices of combined infantry and cavalry operations (since the crossbowmen and armoured spearmen were vital in keeping the Muslim horse-archers from slaughtering the knights' horses and generally holding them at an arm's reach).

The warriors of Outremer also tended to be ever frustrated by Crusading newcomers fresh from Europe who had no idea of how war was waged there. I've read one reason for example Richard Lionheart employed local troops as the outer guard of march columns was that they could be counted on to not do something really stupid like going off to chase after skirmishers...

[Wandarah]

Haha. Love it.

[Randarkmaan]

Skirmish tactics were typically relegated to Turkish or other steppe-nomad mercenaries those days anyway. They had the practical know-how for it, as well as the requisite herds of ponies for remounting after all the running around tired the beasts. Mind you, steppe skirmishers were always only too happy to don a shirt of mail or a lamellar corselet if they could get them too, and helmets were ubiquitous.

Having something more than a shirt and your rather frail human skin between your innards and the enemy's assorted pointy things sort of appeals to most sensible people. And the nomads were by and large very sensible and pragmatic folks.

The horse-archers of more sedentary nations - Arabs, Byzantines, the Mamluks of Egypt - normally fought in close order and didn't skirmish; they didn't have the remount pool to replace the tired horses the harassing tactics invariably produced, and thus relied on density and weight of fire and cohesive squadrons instead.

Anyway, Middle Eastern shock cavalry was usually sort of "dual purpose" - many doubled as mounted archers - and favoured hit-and-run tactics of controlled charges and withdrawals repeated until the enemy broke. This had the plus side of preserving great degree of tactical maneuverability. Conversely their European colleagues were pure shock specialists trained to (hopefully) smash the enemy formation with a single massed charge with couched lances (a spear-wielding technique, incidentally, which the Easterners also knew and used; the Arabs called it "Syrian attack"). They were in a sense giant battlefield projectiles, and their emphasis on linear attack tactics left them somewhat unwieldy. This duly led to the peculiar battlefield dynamic where the Muslims tried to goad the Franks (as the Europeans were generally called) into committing the charge inefficiently, and the Franks strove to hold it until a suitable tactical opportunity presented itself. A natural side effect was that the armies of the Crusader Kingdoms were by far more disciplined and controllable than their peers back in Europe, and had rather better honed practices of combined infantry and cavalry operations (since the crossbowmen and armoured spearmen were vital in keeping the Muslim horse-archers from slaughtering the knights' horses and generally holding them at an arm's reach).

The warriors of Outremer also tended to be ever frustrated by Crusading newcomers fresh from Europe who had no idea of how war was waged there. I've read one reason for example Richard Lionheart employed local troops as the outer guard of march columns was that they could be counted on to not do something really stupid like going off to chase after skirmishers...

Seems we really do agree on this matter, Watchman!

[Watchman]

Maybe we've been reading the same books ?

[Randarkmaan]

It seems very likely...

[Vladimir]

Ok since noone talks about realty and blablabla...

Ramblings from the 12 year old "Terrible Turk"

[Ringeck]

I've read one reason for example Richard Lionheart employed local troops as the outer guard of march columns was that they could be counted on to not do something really stupid like going off to chase after skirmishers...

Odd. Richard's skirmisher-repellent was, according to every original source and every modern account I've ever read, composed of italian and angevin crossbowmen (not native troops) in addition to loaned turcopoles, who, at least according to Riley-Smith (and Nicolle, for that matter) often were latins equipped as horsebow. Additionally, most muslim accounts of the period of the third crusade that have personal experience of the franks (and are not fanatically opposed to writing anything good about them at all, such as ‘Imad al-Din’s, who tends to describe frankish armies of 120,000 men crushed by handfuls of arab cavaliers with gleeful inaccuracy) such as Usama ibn Munqidh, Ibn al-Athir and Ibn Shaddad, emphasise the Franks (be they newly arrived or old hands, there is little differentiation between them in military matters, even when the authors are capable of distinguishing the different nationalities come from Europe) as very careful and disciplined in war. In fact, the most unruly element of the forces of Richard's crusade were the local Knight Hospitallier, who routed Saladin's right wing after charging without orders - Richard followed up their assault with his own angevin and european mercenary troops and the Templars, forcing Saladin's retreat. The makes sense from recent years on research into the old and factually weak idea of the all-encompassing unruly charge as a main tactic of early and high medieval armies (see, for an overview, http://www.deremilitari.org/resource...s/mcglynn.htm), and the odd idea that the mainland europeans were somehow less disciplined than the crusader states' troops - considering that the crusader states received most of their cultural impulses from europe.