MTW Pocket Mod: Units, Buildings and Unit Stats

[caravel]

Totally agree on that part.

The names of the viking units is a tough one, mainly since there were no viking "units", raids were just composed of men from different social classes. In all honesty, the Viking Carls (or Carl Swordsmen) should be removed as only the very social elite (the cream of the cream) could afford swords, but I guess that'd make the game somewhat out of balance.
The Thrall unit seem fit. The Landsmenn could perhaps be renamed to Drängar (dräng=singular, drängar=plural). In modern Swedish dräng would be the equivalent of farm-hand actually, but they were a form of elite warriors in the army of their (often local) lord or king.
Huscarles is another term that does work, however I think that Tegnar (tegn=singular, tegnar=plural) would be somewhat more appropriate. Tegnar were in many ways the same as vassals to the king, who gained land from him, and this land remained in family of the tegn even after his death.
Huscarl is a term that belongs in the dark ages, the viking adapted the Tegn-system from England, do give the impression of being civilized christians. Tegn itself is in fact only a scandinavian from of the anglo-saxon title "Thegn".

Some good ideas in there. I'm quite happy to remove the sword bearing Carls, for that reason alone. The Carl Axemen can be renamed simply "Carls". I have read elsewhere that the Huscarls would have carried swords due to their being an elite. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of this though. I like your ideas of using Tegn/Tegnar and Drang/Drangar instead of Huscarle/Huscarles and Landsmann/Landsmenn respectively for those units to better match the period.

Sorry, I should've worded that better. I was actually referring to a comment you'd made earlier in the thread--you had complained how you often couldn't train Feudal Knights until the Early period was almost over, because of all the infrastructure that was required. I was simply commenting that your changes should help remedy that.

I understand you perfectly now, sorry!

Well wouldn't that be more or less what the Mounted Seargents represent? Seems to me they're pretty much one and the same. I'm not sure either, though.

Probably, though I was thinking that these would be a bit tougher than the Mounted Sergeants, a sort of medium Yeoman Cavalry that depends on the County Militia perhaps.

Are you looking at lowering the fortification requirement for both buildings, or just one of them?

Couldn't agree more. A Keep to get a tavern! GAH!

I'm looking at lowering the requirement for both buildings to the fort, removing the requirement of a tavern to build the first brothel, and then I may try to bring the Cunnny Warren building over from VI. Hopefully it will then work exactly as it does in VI.

-Edit: No sooner said than done. The Taverns, Brothels and their upgrades now depend on the Fort, the Keep, Castle and Citadel. You no longer need the Fortress to build that last type of Brothel/Tavern. They are now both equal in cost, construction time and level. I have also added the "Cunny Warren" as the final upgrade for the Brothel (this was previously absent).

[Innocentius]

Some good ideas in there. I'm quite happy to remove the sword bearing Carls, for that reason alone. The Carl Axemen can be renamed simply "Carls". I have read elsewhere that the Huscarls would have carried swords due to their being an elite. I'm not sure as to the accuracy of this though. I like your ideas of using Tegn/Tegnar and Drang/Drangar instead of Huscarle/Huscarles and Landsmann/Landsmenn respectively for those units to better match the period.

Thinking of it, Huscarles could also be renamed as Hirdmen. A hird was simply a small unit of bodyguards, although these were becoming outdated by the 12th century. In the end, Tegn is perhaps the most accurate term since we're talking about the 11th and 12th century.
And after a second thought, I think that Thralls should simply be renamed Vikings since:
1. Thralls were not intended to fight. They were slaves, often taken as loot on a previous raid.
2. They fit in with the description of the traditional viking: armed with a spear, no armour.

[Kralizec]

One possible reason why Orthodox factions can build the Royal Court is that if they conquer a catholic or muslim province, it doesn't get razed (of course royal estates or baronial courts still would be)

Manco Capac (interesting name btw, could you explain it to me? Is it an actual person): maybe you could have different mounted sergeants for the different eras. The vanilla mounted sergeants would be early only, after that you can retrain them into the high version wich would use the model and skin of Feudal Knights (perhaps with some changes)

[Martok]

Probably, though I was thinking that these would be a bit tougher than the Mounted Sergeants, a sort of medium Yeoman Cavalry that depends on the County Militia perhaps.

Hmm. I see what you're saying now; yeah, that could work. You'd almost have to give it stats similar to that of Feudal Knights, though. Otherwise they wouldn't really be worth training.

-Edit: No sooner said than done. The Taverns, Brothels and their upgrades now depend on the Fort, the Keep, Castle and Citadel. You no longer need the Fortress to build that last type of Brothel/Tavern. They are now both equal in cost, construction time and level. I have also added the "Cunny Warren" as the final upgrade for the Brothel (this was previously absent).

Excellent! So what's left now?

[naut]

Also rename Fyrdmen, Ceorls.

[caravel]

Thinking of it, Huscarles could also be renamed as Hirdmen. A hird was simply a small unit of bodyguards, although these were becoming outdated by the 12th century. In the end, Tegn is perhaps the most accurate term since we're talking about the 11th and 12th century.
And after a second thought, I think that Thralls should simply be renamed Vikings since:
1. Thralls were not intended to fight. They were slaves, often taken as loot on a previous raid.
2. They fit in with the description of the traditional viking: armed with a spear, no armour.

I'm quite happy to make those changes. I always though that "Viking" was just a loose term for the scandinavian raiders that attacked Britain?

One possible reason why Orthodox factions can build the Royal Court is that if they conquer a catholic or muslim province, it doesn't get razed (of course royal estates or baronial courts still would be)

Possibly but yes the later upgrades, that take all the time and money, still get razed when an othodox faction moves in. I suppose the muslim factions have to live with their grand mosque's destruction when the catholics and orthodox invade also.

(interesting name btw, could you explain it to me? Is it an actual person)

The first Inca. I was testing out the new name change feature. I'll probably change back to Caravel so don't get used to this one yet!

Manco Capac: maybe you could have different mounted sergeants for the different eras. The vanilla mounted sergeants would be early only, after that you can retrain them into the high version wich would use the model and skin of Feudal Knights (perhaps with some changes)

That's a good idea, the problem is retraining them into a different unit, which I'll explain below...

Hmm. I see what you're saying now; yeah, that could work. You'd almost have to give it stats similar to that of Feudal Knights, though. Otherwise they wouldn't really be worth training.

Then no one would bother with the Feudal Knights. I was thinking, a bit faster, and with lower defense and armour and not elite? I'll have to see how I can slot them into the unit roster. I haven't even started this unit yet, so there's alot to do.

Excellent! So what's left now?

I've done all of the startpos files now, all of the unit positions are fixed:

• Some ships added for the Moors (formerly the "Almohads") and the English.
  
• The Sicilian barques are replaced with galleys
  
• The round shield/square shield spearmen mix ups are corrected
  
• All peasants removed
  
• Old Feudal and Chivalric Knights removed and replaced with the new ones
  
• Georgia and Lesser Armenia units placed and provinces removed from Byzantine control.

A problem has arisen however. The new Knights don't upgrade from one to the next and I have a few ideas as to why. This is a hardcoded fix that CA implimented in a particular patch IIRC, so it may be very restricted.

The EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights must be somehow hardcode linked to the Royal_Court building, and it's upgrades, if there are other dependencies, such as a spearmaker or horse breeder the RK per era upgrades don't function.

It is also possible that EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights can only be upgraded if they always have the same dependency or dependencies whatever the era, and regardless of what the dependency is.

Another possibility is that the Royal_Court, and it's upgrades, is a unique building (a hardcoded 'feature') that supports the upgrading of any unit that depends exclusively on this building, not units that have multiple dependencies such as the old (Feudal/Chivalric Knights), to the next unit in line (early/high/late specific units).

All of this needs to be tested later. If 'e' is true then things could get rather interesting, but somehow I doubt it is. The way to test all of this is as follows:

Remove all other dependencies, affectively causing all of the RK units to depend on the Royal_Court only (not any additional spearmakers, armourers or horse breeders), this effectively gives us what we had before in a scalable unit with some name changes, and see if that works, if it doesn't then the whole thing could depend on every unit using the same campaign battle map name "Royal Knights". This would be a bit of cheap and dirty, but not impossible.

If it did work then, as another test, other units e.g. peasants, urban militia and militia sergeants could be era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. The Royal_Court itself is the key and not the units.

A test for the "cheap and dirty" approach would be renaming e.g. "Peasants", "Urban Militia" and "Militia Sergeants" to "Royal Knights" (note: their english language file names and not the internal names) making them era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. (The cheap and dirty approach. I really doubt this is the case)

Also rename Fyrdmen, Ceorls.

Well Ceorls were the lower class peasants and smaller land owners as opposed to the Thegns (Thanes) who were the upper class landed freemen. Fyrdmen means basically "Army Men" (warriors), the Fyrd being the army. I wouldn't agree with renaming the Fyrdmen as Ceorls because there were roughly three types of Ceorls: Fyrdmen, Gebedmen and Weorcmen (soldiers, priests and workers). Fyrdmen seems to fit the bill.

[Innocentius]

I'm quite happy to make those changes. I always though that "Viking" was just a loose term for the scandinavian raiders that attacked Britain?

Yes, that's true. However, the "common viking" was just a peasant armed with a spear, axe or bow, and often a shield.

[caravel]

Yes, that's true. However, the "common viking" was just a peasant armed with a spear, axe or bow, and often a shield.

I'll update the Summary to that effect tonight. Also as regards the Huscarles and Tegns, I was under the impression that Huscarles were a different thing to Tegns? I feel that the Huscarles as an elite bodyguard are probably not interchangeable with the Tegns. Perhaps Landsmenn should be renamed as Tegns and Huscarles removed altogether as they really don't fit the medieval period? The basic Viking could be renamed as Drangar and the Viking Carls also removed. Then the Thralls could be renamed as Viking Carls? Am I making sense? I'm looking at this on the stength of the current info pics and not the current names. I'm breaking it down as follows:

Thrall = Viking1
Viking Carl = Viking2
Viking (Vanilla MTW) = Viking3
Landsmenn = Viking4
Huscarles = Viking5

Viking1 = Poorly equipped basic Viking
Viking2 = Adequately equipped Viking with sword
Viking3 = Adequately equipped Viking with axe
Viking4 = Well Equipped Viking
Viking5 = Elite Bodyguard or Royal Viking

Now lets say that Viking2 and Viking5 are redundant, because the first has a sword which is unusual for that type and the last is just not right for the period, Huscarle Bodyguards. That leaves us with:

Viking1 = Viking Carls
Viking3 = Drangar
Viking4 = Tegnar

Yes/no?

Also I plan to remove the Saxon Huscarles, as they simply would not have been around much after Hastings, and rebel Huscarles is silly. Rebel Fyrdmen ok, Huscarles no. Overall I prefer to boot Huscarles out of the 1087 - 1453 campaign because they are just wrong for the time period.

[Innocentius]

Thrall = Viking1
Viking Carl = Viking2
Viking (Vanilla MTW) = Viking3
Landsmenn = Viking4
Huscarles = Viking5

Viking1 = Poorly equipped basic Viking
Viking2 = Adequately equipped Viking with sword
Viking3 = Adequately equipped Viking with axe
Viking4 = Well Equipped Viking
Viking5 = Elite Bodyguard or Royal Viking

Now lets say that Viking2 and Viking5 are redundant, because the first has a sword which is unusual for that type and the last is just not right for the period, Huscarle Bodyguards. That leaves us with:

Viking1 = Viking Carls
Viking3 = Drangar
Viking4 = Tegnar

That sounds fine, although you could keep the Huscarles and simply rename them as Hirdmen (many bishops, kings and even knights had a personal hird even until the 13th century) if you'd like. For balance reasons I leave that up to you, but I agree that Viking2 should be left out.

Good work on the mod, I really like your idea of having a milita-cavarly related to the Town Watch-series of buildings

[caravel]

A problem has arisen however. The new Knights don't upgrade from one to the next and I have a few ideas as to why. This is a hardcoded fix that CA implimented in a particular patch IIRC, so it may be very restricted.

The EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights must be somehow hardcode linked to the Royal_Court building, and it's upgrades, if there are other dependencies, such as a spearmaker or horse breeder the RK per era upgrades don't function.

It is also possible that EarlyRoyalKnights, HighRoyalKnights and LateRoyalKnights can only be upgraded if they always have the same dependency or dependencies whatever the era, and regardless of what the dependency is.

Another possibility is that the Royal_Court, and it's upgrades, is a unique building (a hardcoded 'feature') that supports the upgrading of any unit that depends exclusively on this building, not units that have multiple dependencies such as the old (Feudal/Chivalric Knights), to the next unit in line (early/high/late specific units).

All of this needs to be tested later. If the above is true then things could get rather interesting, but somehow I doubt it is. The way to test all of this is as follows:

Remove all other dependencies, affectively causing all of the RK units to depend on the Royal_Court only (not any additional spearmakers, armourers or horse breeders), this effectively gives us what we had before in a scalable unit with some name changes, and see if that works, if it doesn't then the whole thing could depend on every unit using the same campaign battle map name "Royal Knights". This would be a bit of cheap and dirty, but not impossible.

If it did work then, as another test, other units e.g. peasants, urban militia and militia sergeants could be era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. The Royal_Court itself is the key and not the units.

A test for the "cheap and dirty" approach would be renaming e.g. "Peasants", "Urban Militia" and "Militia Sergeants" to "Royal Knights" (note: their english language file names and not the internal names) making them era restricted (early, high and late respectively) and changing their dependency to the Royal_Court. If they can be upgraded from era to era, then that explains it. (The cheap and dirty approach. I really doubt this is the case)

Well, well, sometimes the simplest solution is the one. Cheap and dirty it is! Simply renaming them in the English language "names.txt" file to "Royal Knights" has made the upgrades start functioning again. I also tested other building dependencies with the Royal_Court (for Ghulam Bodyguards) and it was the same. They were still upgradable. So it seems that the name is the key after all.

This leaves me with a situation. At present I now have the Bodyguard units restored to as they were in vanilla except they're scalable (still half the size of a standard cavalry unit). No other differences. Same dependencies, everything. The Chivalric, Knights, Royal Knights and Lancers are back in, though the modified tech tree still stands for them as it did for the RKs. The Royal_Courts dependency has been lowered one level, so Feudal Knights can be trained from the Royal_Court with their other dependencies, and so on. Lancers are still all factions and in addtion to the Royal_Court3 they still need their existing dependency structures also. To me this seems ok, though I'm not sure about the Royal Knights. I may raise their depencies to the same as the other full size Knights, but keep them as half size versions. Need some input on this one!

The County Militia Cavalry or Yeoman Cavalry (haven't decided on a name yet) I'm not sure about as yet. I'll need to work on that one. I may have to create a new unit for them using the Feudal Knights model and info pic and change the Feudal Knights info pic to be the same as the EarlyRoyalKnights. That's one of my later tasks.

The Viking changes are going to happen now. I may post screenshots in a while also if I'm able.

Ok I've edited the summary, unfortunately it's now getting too late so I'll have to do the actual names and descriptions editing tomorrow. All the changes, and testing, to the Knights took quite a while (I need to look at their support costs also).

Mas tardes.

[Martok]

Sounds good, buddy.

Then no one would bother with the Feudal Knights. I was thinking, a bit faster, and with lower defense and armour and not elite? I'll have to see how I can slot them into the unit roster. I haven't even started this unit yet, so there's alot to do.

I should emphasize that I believe Yeoman Cavalry should not have the exact same abilities as FK's--they're not nobles, after all. I think what you've suggested for them is pretty close to what I had in mind. I was thinking they should maybe have a slightly higher charge bonus (due to being lighter and faster), but I agree with the lower defense/armour values.

I was only thinking that Yeoman Cavalry should perhaps have similar stats to Feudal Knights because by the time you have the necessary infrastructure to train them, you'll almost certainly be in the High era already (when FK's are no longer available, as they'll get upgraded to Chivalric Knights). Otherwise, there would be no medium-type cavalry to fill the niche in between Chivalric Knights/Lancers and lighter cavalry (Mounted Seargents, Hobilars, etc.).

[caravel]

Sounds good, buddy.


I should emphasize that I believe Yeoman Cavalry should not have the exact same abilities as FK's--they're not nobles, after all. I think what you've suggested for them is pretty close to what I had in mind. I was thinking they should maybe have a slightly higher charge bonus (due to being lighter and faster), but I agree with the lower defense/armour values.

I was only thinking that Yeoman Cavalry should perhaps have similar stats to Feudal Knights because by the time you have the necessary infrastructure to train them, you'll almost certainly be in the High era already (when FK's are no longer available, as they'll get upgraded to Chivalric Knights). Otherwise, there would be no medium-type cavalry to fill the niche in between Chivalric Knights/Lancers and lighter cavalry (Mounted Seargents, Hobilars, etc.).

Well I'm thinking that Yeoman Cavalry (have we decided on that name?) should basically be a Feudal Knights, that are:

1) Cheaper to support
2) Cheaper to train
3) Better Charge
4) Faster
5) Available in high/late only
6) Less armour (possibly 2 points less)
7) Lower defence (2 points less)
8) Lower Morale
9) Not elite

I will stick with making FKs, CKs and Lancers era restricted. Lancers will supercede CKs in late, and though CKs will not necessarily supercede FKs (they can be useful in the desert), the Yeoman Cavalry will provide a suitable replacement.

Proposal:

The YCs will depend on the Spearmaker's Workshop (no.2), Horse Breeder (no.2) and the Town Militia (no.3), and not the County Militia (no.4 - the one previously used for pikemen which is actually redundant now, apart from as a valour bonus) which takes much too long to tech up to.

I'm also considering era restrictions and name changes for Feudal Men at Arms, Feudal Sergeants and Mounted (Feudal) Sergeants to Early period only. Don't shoot me yet! The problem is that pretty much all catholic faction military units in the time period of the game are technically "Feudal". It is as stupid to call Men at Arms, and Sergeants "Feudal" as it would be to call our own modern armies "Republican", "Democratic" etc. The Chivalric Sergeants and Chivalric Men at Arms are still Feudal, they're just very roughly 13th - 15th Century Sergeants and Men at Arms.

[naut]

I'm also considering era restrictions and name changes for Feudal Men at Arms, Feudal Sergeants and Mounted (Feudal) Sergeants to Early period only.

Good Idea.

[caravel]

I'm thinking of this sort of structure now:

Men at Arms - Early
Sergeants - Early
Mounted Sergeants - Early

Chivalric Men at Arms - High/Late
Chivalric Sergeants - High/Late
Yeoman Cavalry - High/Late

Also, there is another issue, as ever, with the Almohad Urban Militia (currently renamed Al-Muwahhidun Urban Militia (see earlier in the thread for an explantion of this)). They seem to be an effort at a loose representation of a al-andalus Moorish infantry garrison unit (a sort of a catholic/muslim hybrid unit for lack of a better description), from what I can see, yet they don't fit anything "Almohad" that I know of. The Almohads originated in Algeria and their infantry would have been alike to the Murabitin Infanty or Muwahid Foot Soldiers (renamed Al-Murabitin Infantry, Al-Muwahhidun Infantry) yet these units are apparently famous in Granada??!! I'm not sure about that one. Maybe they were famous in Granada but that probably wouldn't make them Almohad nor Almoravid. This would indicate that they (or the idea behind them anyway) date back to the early 11th century Taifa kingdoms, which is a possibility. They could also be loosely based on something from Ummayad Spain (10th century) of course. On the whole I think they're probably fantasy. Removing them may imbalance the Moors campaign though. I think they were a flawed attempt at game balance in the first place, instead of better Berber cavalry and infantry as well as Almoravid and Almohad specific cavalry and infantry units. All in all it seems that all the effort went into the Turks and Egyptians unit rosters and the Almohads were sold short. Their only unique units are Almohad Urban Militia, Murabitin Infantry and Berber Camels. They don't get Saracens nor do they get any of the vast selection of skirmishers, horse archers and other cavalry available to the other muslim factions. A unit that should have been a totally unique Almohad units, Muwahid Foot Soldiers, was also assigned to all muslim factions.

In view of this the Almohads probably need more attention than some other factions. Giving them back Muwahids exclusively is a start and access to Jinetes would be a big help. AUM's, if not removed altogether, probably need to be renamed "Andalusian (Heavy) Infantry" or something to that effect. They should probably be available in Early and High only, to reflect the decline and ultimate end of muslim Spain.

The Militia Sergeants are another unit that is wrong in so many ways. But is especially wrong for the Moors (the only muslim faction with access to Militia Sergeants). The info pic (the same as the UM info pic but with the character in a different pose) may be reusable. The Sergeants part of the name could go, for all factions. This would be the simplest solution. I haven't completely decided on a name as yet, but I do feel that the structure should be as follows:

Urban Militia = Urban Militia
Militia Sergeants = Militia Guards (or alternative neutral name)

Urban Militia
Valour Bonus: No Change (Tuscany)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)

Militia Guards
Valour Bonus: None (I don't remember their being a valour bonus for these, perhaps Cordoba?)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)

This would remove UMs from the Egyptians and Turks. Which I don't see as a problem. It would also give the Almohads 2 units that the other muslim factions don't have.

[Martok]

Well I'm thinking that Yeoman Cavalry (have we decided on that name?) should basically be a Feudal Knights, that are:

1) Cheaper to support
2) Cheaper to train
3) Better Charge
4) Faster
5) Available in high/late only
6) Less armour (possibly 2 points less)
7) Lower defence (2 points less)
8) Lower Morale
9) Not elite

I will stick with making FKs, CKs and Lancers era restricted. Lancers will supercede CKs in late, and though CKs will not necessarily supercede FKs (they can be useful in the desert), the Yeoman Cavalry will provide a suitable replacement.

Looks good pretty good, MC. I would be careful about not lowering morale too much, though. I agree they shouldn't have the same morale as FK's, but it should probably still be at a decent level.

(By the way, I don't know if Yeoman Cavalry are what we should call them or not; I just like using the word Yeoman. )

Proposal:

The YCs will depend on the Spearmaker's Workshop (no.2), Horse Breeder (no.2) and the Town Militia (no.3), and not the County Militia (no.4 - the one previously used for pikemen which is actually redundant now, apart from as a valour bonus) which takes much too long to tech up to.

Agreed. I think those are reasonable requirements for the YC. That way, you'll only need a Castle to train them, and not a Citadel.

I'm also considering era restrictions and name changes for Feudal Men at Arms, Feudal Sergeants and Mounted (Feudal) Sergeants to Early period only. Don't shoot me yet! The problem is that pretty much all catholic faction military units in the time period of the game are technically "Feudal". It is as stupid to call Men at Arms, and Sergeants "Feudal" as it would be to call our own modern armies "Republican", "Democratic" etc. The Chivalric Sergeants and Chivalric Men at Arms are still Feudal, they're just very roughly 13th - 15th Century Sergeants and Men at Arms.

I'm thinking of this sort of structure now:

Men at Arms - Early
Sergeants - Early
Mounted Sergeants - Early

Chivalric Men at Arms - High/Late
Chivalric Sergeants - High/Late
Yeoman Cavalry - High/Late

I think that'll work!

Also, there is another issue, as ever, with the Almohad Urban Militia (currently renamed Al-Muwahhidun Urban Militia (see earlier in the thread for an explantion of this)). They seem to be an effort at a loose representation of a al-andalus Moorish infantry garrison unit (a sort of a catholic/muslim hybrid unit for lack of a better description), from what I can see, yet they don't fit anything "Almohad" that I know of. The Almohads originated in Algeria and their infantry would have been alike to the Murabitin Infanty or Muwahid Foot Soldiers (renamed Al-Murabitin Infantry, Al-Muwahhidun Infantry) yet these units are apparently famous in Granada??!! I'm not sure about that one. Maybe they were famous in Granada but that probably wouldn't make them Almohad nor Almoravid. This would indicate that they (or the idea behind them anyway) date back to the early 11th century Taifa kingdoms, which is a possibility. They could also be loosely based on something from Ummayad Spain (10th century) of course. On the whole I think they're probably fantasy. Removing them may imbalance the Moors campaign though. I think they were a flawed attempt at game balance in the first place, instead of better Berber cavalry and infantry as well as Almoravid and Almohad specific cavalry and infantry units. All in all it seems that all the effort went into the Turks and Egyptians unit rosters and the Almohads were sold short. Their only unique units are Almohad Urban Militia, Murabitin Infantry and Berber Camels. They don't get Saracens nor do they get any of the vast selection of skirmishers, horse archers and other cavalry available to the other muslim factions. A unit that should have been a totally unique Almohad units, Muwahid Foot Soldiers, was also assigned to all muslim factions.

In view of this the Almohads probably need more attention than some other factions. Giving them back Muwahids exclusively is a start and access to Jinetes would be a big help. AUM's, if not removed altogether, probably need to be renamed "Andalusian (Heavy) Infantry" or something to that effect. They should probably be available in Early and High only, to reflect the decline and ultimate end of muslim Spain.

The Militia Sergeants are another unit that is wrong in so many ways. But is especially wrong for the Moors (the only muslim faction with access to Militia Sergeants). The info pic (the same as the UM info pic but with the character in a different pose) may be reusable. The Sergeants part of the name could go, for all factions. This would be the simplest solution. I haven't completely decided on a name as yet, but I do feel that the structure should be as follows:

Urban Militia = Urban Militia
Militia Sergeants = Militia Guards (or alternative neutral name)

Urban Militia
Valour Bonus: No Change (Tuscany)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)

Militia Guards
Valour Bonus: None (I don't remember their being a valour bonus for these, perhaps Cordoba?)
Eras: All Periods
Trainable by: Catholic/Orthodox/Almohad (Moors)

This would remove UMs from the Egyptians and Turks. Which I don't see as a problem. It would also give the Almohads 2 units that the other muslim factions don't have.

I do think the Almos/Moors still need an AUM-type unit, although renaming them Andalusians (or whatever you called them) would certainly be fine. Otherwise, they'll simply be too underpowered in the Early & High periods.

Everything else sounds good, though.

[caravel]

That's all done apart from the Yeoman Cavalry, get thee to the Summary!

I've taken the liberty of messing with the new Viking Carls unit. It is now a better (more impulsive with a better charge and unformed) cheaper version of the spearmen unit, only available to the Danes. Problem is that it disappears after the end of the High period and will probably be superceded by Sergeants and Chivalric Sergeants. The Carls description fits this unit (formerly the Thralls) perfectly. Thanks to Innocentius for coming up with some brilliant ideas to fix the Viking units once and for all.

Huscarles are currently not in there, though if there is enough support and some strong argument as to why they should be, I'd like to hear it.

AUM are also staying in, unchanged, as the Andalusian Infantry (Andalusia is basically "Muslim Spain". I was leaning towards "Al-Andalus Militia" but decided against that at the last minute. "Andalusian Infantry" has a nice ring to it.). Done.

[Martok]

That's all done apart from the Yeoman Cavalry, get thee to the Summary!

I've taken the liberty of messing with the new Viking Carls unit. It is now a better (more impulsive with a better charge and unformed) cheaper version of the spearmen unit, only available to the Danes. Problem is that it disappears after the end of the High period and will probably be superceded by Sergeants and Chivalric Sergeants. The Carls description fits this unit (formerly the Thralls) perfectly. Thanks to Innocentius for coming up with some brilliant ideas to fix the Viking units once and for all.

Good job guys! I was always a little bothered by the term Thralls, as I didn't think that would apply to any type of fighting men in a jarl's employ. Good to see this fixed.

Huscarles are currently not in there, though if there is enough support and some strong argument as to why they should be, I'd like to hear it.

They're gone? Aw, but Huscarles are awesome!

On a more serious note, Huscarles--at least in the Early period, when they're available--often seem to be one of the only Danish units capable of generating decent governors. Given the Danes' starting lands, and the need to maximize Sweden's wealth (once you conquer it), this is a more important factor than it first appears to be.

If the Huscarles need to be "watered down" a little so that they're not so uber in combat, that's fine--I don't think any of us are going to argue that they're underpowered. I'm admittedly not enough of an historian to argue why they should be in the game from a realism standpoint; but from a gameplay standpoint, I do think they perform a fairly important function. (Plus given that they're simply so much *fun*, that shouldn't be dismissed either!)

AUM are also staying in, unchanged, as the Andalusian Infantry (Andalusia is basically "Muslim Spain". I was leaning towards "Al-Andalus Militia" but decided against that at the last minute. "Andalusian Infantry" has a nice ring to it.). Done.

Agreed. Well done, MC.

[caravel]

Good job guys! I was always a little bothered by the term Thralls, as I didn't think that would apply to any type of fighting men in a jarl's employ. Good to see this fixed.

I'm actually quite pleased with how the Viking Carls have turned out. The Viking Carls description fits the Viking Thralls info pic perfectly, and the stats are now quite interesting, and make the unit useable as opposed to useless. Although they are not indifferent to Vanilla Spearmen the strong charge makes them suited to occasional flanking or downhill charges against cavalry before pinning. Also their "rabble" formation makes them more difficult for archers to hit, but less cohesive. The last point is their uncontrolled behaviour. They may get too big for their boots, underestimate the enemy, and decide to charge without orders if you don't keep a close eye on them.

They're gone? Aw, but Huscarles are awesome!

On a more serious note, Huscarles--at least in the Early period, when they're available--often seem to be one of the only Danish units capable of generating decent governors. Given the Danes' starting lands, and the need to maximize Sweden's wealth (once you conquer it), this is a more important factor than it first appears to be.

The governor generating thing is I think down to the "general candidate" field in the crusaders files. I believe that setting this to prefered, ok or discouraged (and possibly some more that I can't remember off hand) may determine whether a good general appears at the head of a certain newly trained unit or not. This can be modified so that Tegns (the old Landsmenn) get the same kind of good generals as the Huscarles did. Income is critical to the Danes. Making every florin count is important at the start of the early period I agree. Hopefully this will also be addressed with the cheaper overall shipping proposal. (I'll be working on that soon, it's in the summary).

Also the trade goods idea needs to be looked into. The idea of increasing the values of the trade goods to improve local trade won't help as it will also increase the costs of the goods traded overseas dramatically. I'm pretty sure you just earn that amount per good for every port you trade it at (it seems to be much simpler than I had at first envisaged). So if you had three trade goods, one worth 50 another worth 20 and another worth 40 and you were trading with about 15 provinces. that's over 1500 florins worth of trade income anyway. To me it seems that simply lowering the costs of the goods themselves is the key, while removing trade goods from landlocked provinces altogether. Not much can be done about new goods added during the campaign at a certain date, but at least the bulk of the problem is gone. This will stop the AI wasting florins on traders in most landlocked provinces anyway. The import tax percentage can then be boosted, so that while you're trading you're also giving an the income to the AI and vice versa. This is currently at 20%, raising it to 50% would mean that the AI makes a decent bit of income from your trade.

Farming and mining can then be boosted significantly. I may add extra mines if I can think of anything. I know that at present the Game has gold, silver, copper and salt, but it could have other types of "mines" such as Iron Ore mines, Quarries, Chalk Mines, Forestry.

If the Huscarles need to be "watered down" a little so that they're not so uber in combat, that's fine--I don't think any of us are going to argue that they're underpowered. I'm admittedly not enough of an historian to argue why they should be in the game from a realism standpoint; but from a gameplay standpoint, I do think they perform a fairly important function. (Plus given that they're simply so much *fun*, that shouldn't be dismissed either!)


Agreed. Well done, MC.

I sort of guessed that if I removed them that there would be revolts!

I may mod them back in (as Hirdmen as Innocentius suggested), but I think the building dependencies need to be changed considerably. They should depend on the Royal Court (1), the Armourers Guild (3) and the Swordsmiths Workshop (2). I wouldn't change the stats, because that would defeat the object. Crippling them would probably be worse than removing them. Gameplay is also a factor. Varangian Guard, Andalusian Infantry and JHI are probably also overpowered but they're not getting changed.

[Martok]

I'm actually quite pleased with how the Viking Carls have turned out. The Viking Carls description fits the Viking Thralls info pic perfectly, and the stats are now quite interesting, and make the unit useable as opposed to useless. Although they are not indifferent to Vanilla Spearmen the strong charge makes them suited to occasional flanking or downhill charges against cavalry before pinning. Also their "rabble" formation makes them more difficult for archers to hit, but less cohesive. The last point is their uncontrolled behaviour. They may get too big for their boots, underestimate the enemy, and decide to charge without orders if you don't keep a close eye on them.

They sound a little like Highland Clansmen, except with spears. It should be....interesting to try them out.

The governor generating thing is I think down to the "general candidate" field in the crusaders files. I believe that setting this to prefered, ok or discouraged (and possibly some more that I can't remember off hand) may determine whether a good general appears at the head of a certain newly trained unit or not. This can be modified so that Tegns (the old Landsmenn) get the same kind of good generals as the Huscarles did. Income is critical to the Danes. Making every florin count is important at the start of the early period I agree. Hopefully this will also be addressed with the cheaper overall shipping proposal. (I'll be working on that soon, it's in the summary).

Well if Tegns can be modded so that they're more likely to have good acumen, that would definitely help. I still think the Huscarles should stay in, though.

Also the trade goods idea needs to be looked into. The idea of increasing the values of the trade goods to improve local trade won't help as it will also increase the costs of the goods traded overseas dramatically. I'm pretty sure you just earn that amount per good for every port you trade it at (it seems to be much simpler than I had at first envisaged). So if you had three trade goods, one worth 50 another worth 20 and another worth 40 and you were trading with about 15 provinces. that's over 1500 florins worth of trade income anyway. To me it seems that simply lowering the costs of the goods themselves is the key, while removing trade goods from landlocked provinces altogether. Not much can be done about new goods added during the campaign at a certain date, but at least the bulk of the problem is gone. This will stop the AI wasting florins on traders in most landlocked provinces anyway. The import tax percentage can then be boosted, so that while you're trading you're also giving an the income to the AI and vice versa. This is currently at 20%, raising it to 50% would mean that the AI makes a decent bit of income from your trade.

Interesting; I didn't realize that was why trade goods in landlocked provinces are so hampered. If raising the tax percentage on imports will help the AI, then I would definitely say go for it!

Farming and mining can then be boosted significantly. I may add extra mines if I can think of anything. I know that at present the Game has gold, silver, copper and salt, but it could have other types of "mines" such as Iron Ore mines, Quarries, Chalk Mines, Forestry.

Some good ideas there. Timber mills (for Forestry) could help benefit the HRE, as well as some of the northern and eastern provinces on the map. Would you limit iron mines to the provinces that currently have iron (a majority of which are in Iberia), or do you think you'd expand them?

I sort of guessed that if I removed them that there would be revolts!

I may mod them back in (as Hirdmen as Innocentius suggested), but I think the building dependencies need to be changed considerably. They should depend on the Royal Court (1), the Armourers Guild (3) and the Swordsmiths Workshop (2). I wouldn't change the stats, because that would defeat the object. Crippling them would probably be worse than removing them. Gameplay is also a factor. Varangian Guard, Andalusian Infantry and JHI are probably also overpowered but they're not getting changed.

I think the build requirements you propose are pretty reasonable, except I wonder if needing an Armourers Guild is maybe a little high. Given that you need a Citadel to build it, it seems likely that by the time a Danish player had constructed all the necessary buildings to train Huscarles, the Early period would be nearly over. (Unless my math is way off, upgrading your castle to a Citadel, along with building the other structures, would take around 60 years. And that's if you didn't build anything else!)

So unless you were planning on making Huscarles trainable in both Early and High--which I wouldn't recommend, and I don't think that's what you had in mind anyway--I would ask if perhaps the requirement ought to be lowered from an Armourers Guild to an Armourers Workshop. I doubt anyone would have a major problem with having to tech up a good bit before training Huscarles, but they should still be trainable for a reasonable period of time before the Early period expires.

Sorry if I sound like I'm trying to boss you around and tell you what to do, btw. I just do my best to give input, but I know I come across the wrong way sometimes.

[caravel]

They sound a little like Highland Clansmen, except with spears. It should be....interesting to try them out.

Well if Tegns can be modded so that they're more likely to have good acumen, that would definitely help. I still think the Huscarles should stay in, though.

They can be modded to appear as overall good governor material, with better stats. That is what usually occurs. There is no single attribute that boosts the accumen of generals belonging to a certain unit. It's still random. Also elite units, in general, seem to produce some good generals. Alot of the time having a good faction leader will determine the quality of the generals that appear.

Interesting; I didn't realize that was why trade goods in landlocked provinces are so hampered. If raising the tax percentage on imports will help the AI, then I would definitely say go for it!

Trade goods in landlocked provinces are largely pointless because there's no one to trade with. In my experience trade needs a port as well as a trader. Even if you've got neighbours that are allied to you, trade with them doesn't occur. Trade is only worthwhile if you're trading by sea and that one province is sending, e.g. saltfish to 10 provinces. Local trade is trade within that province only. Local trade is exactly the same size income as foreign trade with a single foreign port. It is an income based upon a set percentage of the trade goods in the province, which is obviously further affected by upgrades to the Trader. It never seems to match the trade value in the startpos files. I forgot this earlier when I described the income from trading with other provinces. You never get the full trade goods value, but the cost per good always appears to be the same whether trading with your own province or others via a port. To reiterate:

1) Land locked provinces cannot trade with each other in any way. If you build the trader in e.g. Syria you will get one complete export trade income from the all of the goods there. This is internal Trade within the Province itself (Syria Trading with Syria not with any neighours whether allied neutral or your own provinces)

2) When a province with trade goods builds a trader that province gets a default standard trade income called "local trade" that is the same value as if you'd traded all of those same goods to another allied or neutral province, that accepts all of those goods, by sea.

3) The import percentage is so low that the importers get a pittance for any goods they import. Raising this from 20% to 50% makes a small difference though it may need to go higher. This will need to be tested for game balancing.

Starting up a Russian/High campaign I built the Trader in Muscovy for 800 florins, the only trade good, furs, is worth 20 florins. The startpos file sets this as 40. Upgrading to the Merchant cost me 1000 forins and I'm now making 24 florins. The Merchants guild costs me 1200 and now I'm making 30 florins. The final upgrade, the Master Merchant, costing 1400 florins has raised the income from furs to 34 florins, but not the 40 in the startpos text file. So is this some kind of seed number or a percentage? Is it 40 percent of something + whatever the traders and their upgrades give, or something else? I'm not sure. In total the outlay was 4400 for the trading buildings, so the Russians just need to wait 220 years for it to pay for itself then they sit back and enjoy the 34 florins per year.

So really most of those landlocked trade goods need to go, in case the AI goes and blows a few thousand on traders... The other alternative would be to increase the number of Landlocked trade goods and encourage the AI to build the traders more. With more goods the incomes do get quite sizable. Syria for example is, sort of worthwhile, once it aquires those extra goods.

The build prod file contains not info pertaining to the nature of the trader structures. They are labelled as "TRADING_POST" type structures and nohing more. There is nothing in the file to relate to the extra income produced by the upgrades. This must be hardcoded. The game engine possibly recognises that the buildings are in a province and adjust the incomes. There is also nothing in the dependencies info about building conditions, so this must also be hardcoded...

Some good ideas there. Timber mills (for Forestry) could help benefit the HRE, as well as some of the northern and eastern provinces on the map. Would you limit iron mines to the provinces that currently have iron (a majority of which are in Iberia), or do you think you'd expand them?

...Mines have the resources column, which they depend upon in order to be built, then the building itself generates a set income stored in the build prod file. Based on that I can have various types of new mines up and going very quickly, just need good historically based ideas and locations!.

The Iron mines would be added to provinces that already have Iron, or the whole thing could be done differently...

At the moment the Metalsmith depends directly on Iron. This could be restructured as follows:

Metalsmith (and upgrades)
Dependency: Iron Mine

Iron Mine (and it's upgrade "Iron Mine Complex")
Dependency: Iron (Ore) Resource

This way we have slotted in a new structure that also gives an income. Then, as I've said in the previous post, Iron resources could be made more plentiful to inlcude about half the provinces (As I've said I need some assistance as to where they should be located as I want them as historical as possible, as well as balanced). Iron was a necessary component of steel, which was used extensively throughout the medieval world for arms and armour of all kinds, so just having it in a few provinces is daft. I think the representation in the game is of "famous steel" (e.g. Toledo steel in particular), abstracting other deposits out. The Toledo Steel thing can still be preserved by only allowing the Spanish (Castilian Leonese) to produce the last Metalsmith upgrade.

I think the build requirements you propose are pretty reasonable, except I wonder if needing an Armourers Guild is maybe a little high. Given that you need a Citadel to build it, it seems likely that by the time a Danish player had constructed all the necessary buildings to train Huscarles, the Early period would be nearly over. (Unless my math is way off, upgrading your castle to a Citadel, along with building the other structures, would take around 60 years. And that's if you didn't build anything else!)

So unless you were planning on making Huscarles trainable in both Early and High--which I wouldn't recommend, and I don't think that's what you had in mind anyway--I would ask if perhaps the requirement ought to be lowered from an Armourers Guild to an Armourers Workshop. I doubt anyone would have a major problem with having to tech up a good bit before training Huscarles, but they should still be trainable for a reasonable period of time before the Early period expires.

I agree. The requirement for a castle is sufficient. That's done.

Sorry if I sound like I'm trying to boss you around and tell you what to do, btw. I just do my best to give input, but I know I come across the wrong way sometimes.

That's not a problem. I really appreciate all of the input from all of the members in this thread! The rest of the traitors have obviously sneaked off to play M2TW!!

Now, for the latest. The Yeoman Cavalry are in. I haven't tested them yet but they do work (I hate adding units, it's very tedious and I always forget something or make a typo somewhere).

The next thing to do is change the shipping costs. I've done the ports and shipyards already, but the ships themselves I've overlooked! So I need to do those next.

After that, down the mines!

Then it's the trade and farm balancing act.

We should have a testing version ready by next week. The whole thing is mainly text files but a few unit icons (renamed replicas not originals) need to be added also. Because of this I can't Really just post up the text files and allow people to just generate their own txt files from that, so it will have to be contained in a zip file. I should be able to host it early next month, once my internet connection is working again. I can't FTP into my ISP webspace from this connection, it won't allow it.

[Geezer57]

Hi all! I've been lurking in this thread from the beginning, following the discussions with interest. The work you've done sounds fascinating. One question: when you feel these changes are complete enough, is it going to be downloadable somewhere as a mod? I'd love to play with it when the day comes.

[naut]

As you've made Pikemen Town Watch(3) dependant, have you left Halberdiers Town Watch(3) dependant?

[caravel]

Hi all! I've been lurking in this thread from the beginning, following the discussions with interest. The work you've done sounds fascinating. One question: when you feel these changes are complete enough, is it going to be downloadable somewhere as a mod? I'd love to play with it when the day comes.

Once the changes are complete, and my webhosting is back up and running their will be a zip file available for download. This will be the testing version, and only those interested in taking part in testing should install. I'm hoping at that stage that we will get alot of feedback on any changes or tweaks that need to be made. The more people on board the better, as to the name, I hadn't thought about that as yet. Naming such a mod may seem a bit self indulgent and over the top when you consider that this is no where near the scale of mods such as BKB, NTW, HTW or XL. This is more of a patch than anything. I would like to get as much historical accuracy in as possible but I'm no historian. And any history I do read up on tends not to be military based, so though I understand somewhat about e.g. the Byzantine economic and social history, I'm not aware of what shape of helmet was worn by their infantry between 1090 and 1100, for example. My other focus is gameplay. Achieving a better balance and strengthening the AI's position is a priority. The more people involved the better. If people don't understand modding it's not a problem, ideas and information are more important.

As you've made Pikemen Town Watch(3) dependant, have you left Halberdiers Town Watch(3) dependant?

I have. Though Pikeman are only available in Late, so Halberdiers will appear first. I could still make the Pikeman available in Late if I was to lower the build requirement for the Town Watch(4) to a Citadel. At present the depencies are as follows:

TOWN_WATCH - CASTLE
TOWN_WATCH2 - CASTLE4,TOWN_WATCH
TOWN_WATCH3 - CASTLE10, TOWN_WATCH2
TOWN_WATCH4 - CASTLE13, TOWN_WATCH3

They could be restructured like this:

TOWN_WATCH - CASTLE
TOWN_WATCH2 - CASTLE4,TOWN_WATCH
TOWN_WATCH3 - CASTLE7, TOWN_WATCH2
TOWN_WATCH4 - CASTLE10, TOWN_WATCH3

CASTLE7 is the Castle, which was previously not a dependency for the TOWN_WATCH buildings. The previous dependencies were Fort, Keep, Citadel, Fortress. Using this method, the dependency for Pikemen can be changed back to the TOWN_WATCH4.

It seems to me that alot of effort was made to stop the factions from obtaining pikemen and halberdiers too early and in large numbers. This is rather silly because neither are elite troops, and neither are that good, and both are era restricted anyway. I preferred chivalric foot knights (train 20 man units of Royal Knights and dismount before battle) to halberdiers and Chivalric Sergeants to Pikemen. They just don't seem worth the effort with the old dependencies, now with the revised ones I feel I might use them more. (and hopefully the AI will also)

The summary should be updated later with the homelands so far. That is going to be a big job because I'll need to add all of the rest of the units in the game to the list.

[caravel]

They're basically the same as a mine, except with a different name and depending on the forest resource instead of e.g. silver or salt.

[naut]

Just something I've stumbled upon in my own research, as this was brought up about a page ago.

Huscarls is the Saxon/English name, the appropriate Norse/Danish name is Butsecarles. Cnut copied their style of fighting from the Saxon Huscarl style of fighting, and then it was implemented across Scandinavia.

Also Heerthmen/Hirdmen are completely different to Butsecarles. Hirdmen would fight with swords, Butsecarles with axes. But the most interesting thing is that they first appeared as a fighting body between 995 - 1035 and the Vikings began to fade out with the advent of cavalry and civilisation in the late 1100s; entirely appropriate for the Early period.

[Innocentius]

Hirdmen would fight with swords[...]

Well, that really depends. The axe was the weapon favoured in Scandinavia well into the 12th century, and there was no specified "dressing code" for hirdmän, so it's equally possible that a hirdman wielded a sword or an axe. It was quite common that hirds worked as small dragoon units, riding to the battle but fighting on foot.

[Innocentius]

While I'm at it, I might just mention what I know about hirds, if it could be to any use.

Hirds were small bodies of men, used as personal protection to a certain person. Hirdmän/hirdmen were mostly sons of some nobleman, but who were the third or fourth son in line, preventing them from gaining any profitable heritage, or making them "unmarriable". They could of course be bastards (frillosöner) but that wasn't really a disadvantage untill the 13th or 14th century, when christianty had finally rooted properly.
Anyway, these sons or heirs tended to join a hird for some nobleman (mostly a friend or relative to their own family). There were juridical limitations of how big a hird was allowed to be, depending on the class of the person "owning" the hird. For example, the bishop of Skara was allowed to have a 12 men strong hird, but this of course varied from time to time. The biggest hirds were in the hundred or something, IIRC.

[caravel]

Rythmic and Innocentius have obviously done alot of research into this, so I will be happy to impliment in the mod whichever they can agree on. Again though, remember how I broke down the viking units in the game before then named them fitting to their appearance, arms and stats. I do think that the old Thralls should stay as they are at present (Carls), and the that the Old "Vikings" should be the Drangar (the younger more inexperiences warriors). The Landsmenn should remain as the Tegnar (the Thegns, older more veteran warriors) as that really does fit their stats and info pic. The Huscarles I don't really know about, but I've decided to leave them in there for gameplay reasons. I haven't kicked Nizari (Nizari Foot Soldiers), AUM (Andalusian Infantry) and Hashishin (Fedayeen) out so I suppose I can't boot out the Huscarles either. Perhaps both Huscarles and Hirdmen need to be in the game? A new unit based on Landsmenn with the old Viking Carls info pic could possibly be used for Hirdmen? I think there is another also for the Early Varangian Guards, but I can't remember that one. Either way it's likely to be axe wielding.

Another thing is the unit sizes. The Carls would have been in large numbers, the Drangar in moderate numbers and the others in small numbers. The Huscarles perhaps only in scalable 20 man units?

[naut]

Well, that really depends. The axe was the weapon favoured in Scandinavia well into the 12th century, and there was no specified "dressing code" for hirdmän, so it's equally possible that a hirdman wielded a sword or an axe.

Yes, I was just generalising (it is called the Dane axe or Viking axe for a reason )

It was quite common that hirds worked as small dragoon units, riding to the battle but fighting on foot.

Yeah, a tactic also used alot by German(ic) peoples of the Era.

Hirds were small bodies of men, used as personal protection to a certain person. Hirdmän/hirdmen were mostly sons of some nobleman, but who were the third or fourth son in line, preventing them from gaining any profitable heritage, or making them "unmarriable". They could of course be bastards (frillosöner) but that wasn't really a disadvantage untill the 13th or 14th century, when christianty had finally rooted properly.
Anyway, these sons or heirs tended to join a hird for some nobleman (mostly a friend or relative to their own family). There were juridical limitations of how big a hird was allowed to be, depending on the class of the person "owning" the hird. For example, the bishop of Skara was allowed to have a 12 men strong hird, but this of course varied from time to time. The biggest hirds were in the hundred or something, IIRC.

That fills in the gaps of my knowledge. IIRC there were possibly never more than 2000 Hirds across Scandinavia, but I'm not entirely sure of this.

Huscarles perhaps only in scalable 20 man units

For gameplay reasons it sounds like a good idea.

[Martok]

Another thing is the unit sizes. The Carls would have been in large numbers, the Drangar in moderate numbers and the others in small numbers. The Huscarles perhaps only in scalable 20 man units?

Hmm, that might work. It would also help them from being being so overpowered on the "Normal" unit setting, since they wouldn't have 60 men anymore.

How would you make them scalable, btw? Would it be similar to what you did with converting the RK's to Feudal/Chivalric/Lancers?