IGN Faction Feature: Holy Roman Empire

[the_mango55]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/738/738809p2.html

Looks good, but I'm left wondering the difference between the Zweihanders and the Forlorn Hope.

Literally meaning two hander's, in German, in reference to the grip needed to wield their massive swords. Zweihanders are very heavily armoured foot troops who can cut a bloody swathe through nearly all infantry they will encounter. This unit is deployed by the Holy Roman Empire and often forms the vanguard when assaulting enemy battle lines.

The 'Verlorene Haufe' or Forlorn Hope as they are known, are comprised of prisoners and volunteers desperate for glory. Their job is to lead the first and usually fatal charge used to break up enemy pike formations. Forlorn Hope are heavily armoured and wield massive Zweihanders. These units are vicious assault troops who can chop a man into bloody pieces.

Sounds like almost the exact same unit. :hmmm:

[buujin]

Gah! 3/4 of the dismounted knights and 4/5 of the mounted ones wield maces.

One mace unit is enough, sheesh

[Censor]

But maces were the preferred weapon for combat! It's so much harder to cut through armor with a blade!

That aside a bit of variety would be nice, for that you get two different Zweihander units! Ausgezeichnet!

[Darth Nihilus]

Words cannot express how badly I want to play as this faction.....

[Comrade Alexeo]

Itz time, kommaradden!

Iz time to create...




Virst Reich!



Jawohl!

[Furious Mental]

If you look at screenshots elsewhere you'll find that the Forlorn Hope wear only a half-armour compared to the full plate of the Zweihanders. I think the Forlorn Hope are probably alot faster on the battlefield.

Overall looks tasty. However when they say "shooting circle" in relation to the Reiters they had better be talking about a caracole and not a frikken cantabrian circle.

[Midnight]

I'm glad to see that the HRE doesn't have to grab either Constantinople or Jerusalem.

[econ21]

A very impressive army - I am not seeing any weaknesses, nor the "lack of professional" troops in the late period. Maybe all they lack are musketeers?

I like the sound of the smaller number of starting provinces (6) than MTW. I can start gradually against the surrounding rebels before facing the potential hell of a five front war.

[anders]

im really looking forward to disrupt some tightly-packed infantry formations with my reiters.

what on earth is the difference between mailed and feudal knights, why are there no mounted mercenary knights, and no dismounted mailed knights?

also, shouldnt there be some kind of single-handed swordsman, similar to the chivalric MAAs?

[Prince of the Poodles]

Could anyone tell me, historically, why the HRE wasnt able to field the "Professional Armies" of France and England, as mentioned in the bio?

[econ21]

Could anyone tell me, historically, why the HRE wasnt able to field the "Professional Armies" of France and England, as mentioned in the bio?

AFAIK, I believe it was because it was a less centralised state. The monarch (Emperor) in the HRE had less authority over the regions than the French or English Kings. This was particularly true towards the end of the period, when France was raising the beginnings of a standing army but the HRE found it harder and harder to get its constituent parts to commit men. I believe the HRE increasingly had to rely on mercenaries - professionals, I guess, but not a professional national army in the modern sense.

[Husar]

Before I go and read it I have to say it's "Verlorener Haufen" not "Verlorene Haufe" and since that means a bunch of lost guys, I would also assume they are less armoured than Zweihanders and more like desperate high-morale troops.

[Kraxis]

I have also noticed that the dismounted knights don't have any sort of polears, which was the general way to go about on foot for the High middle ages knights.
One of the best MTW units was the Dismounted Chivalric Knights. I see no comparable unit.

Also, I'm rather surprised that there are no rock solid backbone of the army, such as the everpresent FMAA or CMAA of MTW. They weren't terribly fun (though as the HRE the FMAA were indispenseable and a great joy when they finally arrived), but they gave a good sense of of catholic armies. Strong, slow, solid and well armoured.

[econ21]

I'm wondering if the dismounted knights are replacing the MAA? I never found the distinction between knights and men-at-arms in MTW that convincing anyway. The standard Catholic Medieval warrior was a man-at-arms ie an armoured melee fighter, usually with a horse. He might have been a knight in status or not, but I am not sure it meant that much difference in terms of combat function.

The English chivalric knights at Agincourt have polearms. Maybe the HRE (and the French) are supposed to rely on pikes and halberds? That could be how M2TW represents the English as having better dismounted knights, while the Continentals get better mounted ones.

[Monarch]

I think I'll play these guys first :)

A nice northern faction, with alot of different ways to go, should also see alot of action due to position. Plus Huscarls and Zwiehanders :D

[Kraxis]

I'm not so much for the MAA in terms of historicity, but as a good core for the army in gameplay.
I doubt you will get many knights very easily. They are bound to be rather expensive (elite and cavalry). So I think armies could end up lacking some oomph in the infantry regard. Besides the dismounted knights seems to lack the lance, and only go about with their maces and swords.

If you really want to talk about the MAA in historical terms, then you can regard them as household infantry. Trained and equipped by the lord to be good troops, like Sergeants, but without the 'political' aspirations of the latter (to become knights). That is certainly not far out.

I wonder if the king's bodyguards can be dismounted. I found that when I 'unlocked' dismounting for all mounted troops, that the king's and princes' bodyguards were absolutely killers when dismounted in High. Especially against cavalry of course, but also in general on defense.

I have to agree with others, that if I get this game, I will likely try out the HRE first. All those MTW experiences really pull at me. So when people start posting faction AARs of the HRE I will read carefully. And if it sounds like MTW just a bit, I'm sold.

[Nathanael]

Re: polearms vs. maces for dismounted knights -

It's not yet certain whether polearms have the giant bonus vs cavalry (or even any bonus) like they did (and should) in MTW. If they don't have that, and both polearms and maces are effective vs. armor, then it's only going to be a cosmetic difference (except for bonus abilities, like spear wall).

[the_mango55]

Re: polearms vs. maces for dismounted knights -

It's not yet certain whether polearms have the giant bonus vs cavalry (or even any bonus) like they did (and should) in MTW. If they don't have that, and both polearms and maces are effective vs. armor, then it's only going to be a cosmetic difference (except for bonus abilities, like spear wall).

They did in the demo.

[Barkhorn1x]

I have to agree with others, that if I get this game, I will likely try out the HRE first. All those MTW experiences really pull at me. So when people start posting faction AARs of the HRE I will read carefully. And if it sounds like MTW just a bit, I'm sold.

HRE for sure for me.

BTW, new rig just arrived and is sitting in the box right next to my desk. Only 4 hours to quitting time!!!

Barkhorn.

[Gurkhal]

The HRE looks good to me. My all time favorite faction from the previous MTW.

[Furious Mental]

In case anyone was wondering, these are the Reiters and Forlorn Hope.

[Prince of the Poodles]

AFAIK, I believe it was because it was a less centralised state. The monarch (Emperor) in the HRE had less authority over the regions than the French or English Kings. This was particularly true towards the end of the period, when France was raising the beginnings of a standing army but the HRE found it harder and harder to get its constituent parts to commit men. I believe the HRE increasingly had to rely on mercenaries - professionals, I guess, but not a professional national army in the modern sense.

Thanks man. 8)

[Ulstan]

Interesting. They have tons of knights and pike/spearmen and looks like a good assortment of food ranged. Weaknesses seem to be light cavalry and, oddly, sword/polearm infantry O.o

Maybe the fact that the basic infantryman is missing, and you tend to have armies of elite knights and common spear armed peasant types is what they meant by not really having a professional standing army?

[The_Doctor]

It looks good. I will play as them first.

About the lack of sword infantry, maybe some of the spear infantry has swords as secondary weapons.

[Cheetah]

I'm wondering if the dismounted knights are replacing the MAA?

The Sicilians have Dismounted Italian MAA (which seems to be slightly inferior to dismounted knights), so it seems some factions will have them, whereas others will not. Which is good news IMO.


ps. the thing I dont't understand is that they don't have mounted MAAs, not that they need any more cavarly ...

[econ21]

The Sicilians have Dismounted Italian MAA (which seems to be slightly inferior to dismounted knights), so it seems some factions will have them, whereas others will not. Which is good news IMO.

Good point. I think reinforces the idea that there might be slight variations in the quality of dismounted knight:
England (polearm knight)>HRE (mace knight)>Sicily (sword MAA)
From Agincourt, France seems to get both the polearm type and the sword/shield type knight. I agree some differentiation would be good news at least for variety. (& for history, the English do need some anti-cav dismounted knights)

ps. the thing I dont't understand is that they don't have mounted MAAs, not that they need any more cavarly ...

They being Sicily? My hunch is that Sicilian high period knights dismount to be MAAs. Of course, Sicily does have Mounted Sergeants but this time round I think they may dismount to be spearmen or something. The IGN description of the Italian dismounted MAAs sound more like what I understood the term MAAs to refer to in history - ie a heavily armoured fighter, usually with horse. The faction preview says they are knights + lesser troops, but wear plate.

[Drake]

It sounds like they may have cut down the HRE's starting position. In M:TW HRE started with a lot of provinces and facilities, whereas now they kick off with 6 (I count?) settlements. Possibly a more fair reflection of the time, since the Western Roman Empire wa sin decline by this stage?

EDIt: Hit post too early. My point being that this might make the HRE easier to play since it gives them less territory to cover and manage. In the first game there was so much to be done before you could start getting into everyone else properly. Having cities like Prague nearby for easier conquest should allow expansion at a more comfortable rate but is this proximity to the Pope accurate? Being next door to him and Sicily seems a bit off to me, but then I'm no history buff.

[Faenaris]

... snip ...

EDIt: Hit post too early. My point being that this might make the HRE easier to play since it gives them less territory to cover and manage. In the first game there was so much to be done before you could start getting into everyone else properly. Having cities like Prague nearby for easier conquest should allow expansion at a more comfortable rate but is this proximity to the Pope accurate? Being next door to him and Sicily seems a bit off to me, but then I'm no history buff.

The same reason why I am looking forward to playing the HRE this time. In MTW, you had a huge empire, lots of hostile (and opportunistic) neighbours and a distrustful pope. Combine that with the fact that in one turn, the enemy could be all over you and the HRE was one though cookie.

This time, you will get some more advance warning and a smaller empire to start. Me like that. :) And those Zweihanders are just drop dead gorgeous. I'll be using them alot. :)

About the proximity to the pope, I have no idea either. I thought Venice, Milan, the other Italian city states and Sicily were much much closer neighbours to the Pope when compared to the HRE.

[aWisler]

looks to be a fun faction, im gonna play england and french campaigns first though, than sicily or this. im not as interested in this because im not a big fan of mostly pike infantry. does the holy roman empire start out with control of the pope or what?

While im at it, i cant make new topics for some reason so ill ask this question
ive never played the midieval games, only rome TW, can someone explain in detail the religious aspect of the game, for example if im england and i declare war on france, will i be excommunicated no matter what if i keep attacking? and if i am excommunicated, after i take over france could i restore relations with the pope?

[Comrade Alexeo]

does the holy roman empire start out with control of the pope or what?

As Voltaire famously said, the Holy Roman Empire "...[was] neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire."



The HRE arose from Charlemagne's attempt to reestablish the western half of the Roman Empire. He never succeeded in doing so, able to control only what are now France and Germany and some of northern Italy. He was crowned by Pope Leo III as "Imperator Augustus" on Christmas Day of the year 800, and so it was accepted, although not fact, that he was the protector of what would become the Catholic Church. The name vaguely comes from this, although nobody is exactly sure where it actually came from.

The Frankish practice of dividing one's lands amongst one's sons eventually led to the fracturing of Charlemagne's lands into 3 parts; Charles got France, Lothar the Rhineland and northern Italy, and Lewis got the other part of Germany. Eventually, a man named Otto gained control of the German parts of what was Charlemagne's empire, and was crowned in 962.

Otto and his followers considered themselves the new "caretakers" of the Roman Empire, but they didn't make it too obvious so as not to anger the Byzantines (whose kingdom really WAS the Holy Roman Empire).

In all but name the "Holy Roman Empire" is really just a collection of the various German states in Central Europe. Thus, when Hitler declared Nazi Germany to be the "Third Reich," he was essentially saying "Third Holy Roman Empire" (he First was the one Otto gained control of, the Second was the one that was created by Bismarck in the late 1800's), or, although he never actually said it, "Fourth Roman Empire." Oddly enough, Hitler got closer to controlling the former lands of the Roman Empire than anyone else...