inuit lancers(!!)...

[Sheogorath]

Walrus riders would honestly be more appealing. The inherent absurdity and the fact that no one would mistake them with reality.

Also, I thought that smiley was a sad guy with a beret. >.>

I don't think anybody could mistake an elephant in a box for reality either. Especially not one that collapses into a black hole when the box is open ;)

[seireikhaan]

So I don't suppose anybody remembers the Kensai from STW: Warlords ed.?

[Sheogorath]

So I don't suppose anybody remembers the Kensai from STW: Warlords ed.?

Hey, everybody knows katanas are the best weapons ever. They can cut through tanks, you know.

I saw it in an anime once.

[DisruptorX]

I don't think anybody could mistake an elephant in a box for reality either. Especially not one that collapses into a black hole when the box is open ;)

I should have been more specific. I meant in relation to Inuit lancers, Huron Men-at-arms, Georgian line infantry and the like. Keep pushing for your idea though. It could work similar to Dark Eldar portals in WH40k. The Timurid commander could rush forward, open his webway portal right in front of the enemy, and suddenly dozens of elephants with twin-linked puckett guns emerge to rain death upon the enemy.

As for Shogun, I started with MTW 1. I do remember Jedi kings who could personally slay hundreds of men, however.

[seireikhaan]

As for Shogun, I started with MTW 1. I do remember Jedi kings who could personally slay hundreds of men, however.

Kensai were units that consisted of a single man, who was personally capable of slaying entire armies by himself if he wasn't shot to death first.

[DisruptorX]

Kensai were units that consisted of a single man, who was personally capable of slaying entire armies by himself if he wasn't shot to death first.

That is what I seem to have gathered from reading about them elsewhere on this site. And given the mediocrity of missile weapons in the shogun/mtw1 engine, that would probably be no easy order?

[BeeSting]

Kensai were units that consisted of a single man, who was personally capable of slaying entire armies by himself if he wasn't shot to death first.

LOL I remember that... once again, CA beat Hollywood.

[Mr Frost]

...In fact, chain mail probably wouldn't do much good against a solid bayonet thrust...

Incorrect , though given the vast amount of Victorian era ignorant tosh that passed for history that is still doing the rounds in popular mindset , you cannot be blamed too much for thinking so .

Even moderatly well made riveted mail would stop a bayonet thrust from Andre the Giant {though were he to indeed be hitting you it would certainly leave a bruise} and is virtually impervious to most muscle powered weapons .
Only the armour piercing spikes on warhammers and halberds and the like can actually penetrate it{and not every time either !} and only very heavy blows , such as from maces , can incapacitate the wearer with only one or a few hits places where the maile is protecting .
Weapons like swords and spears {and a bayonet is inferior to a spear} can only kill when hitting portions of their foe protected by riveted or welded {which was indeed used by the Ottomans and Persians both} maile if the blows are very many {which takes a long time giving the wearer ample opportunity to slay their attacker} . It is what knights wore on the first few Crusades and the Roman , Gauls , Greeks and others found it performed admirably against spear {which again are much better in melee than bayonets} .


The reason some European forces could out fight such troops wasn't some "uber" property of fixed bayonets™ , but rather a combination of better fireing drills {with both more good quality modern guns and more ammunition} and better discipline and that typically said encounters were between professional European forces against armies that had many poorly trained conscripts that were swept away {or ran} quickly allowing the Europeans to compromise the enemies line and outflank them .

The only reason Europeans abandoned all armour except for some cavalry {and even then in rather limited fashion} was simply expense and that firepower won battles {bayonet charges almost always happened after the enemy had been shot to peices and were ready to break , actual melee was fairly rare in European warfare of the time} .






You did correctly note the real weakness of maile armour in the period : bullets . Maile won't do anything significant to save you from a bullet , however it would be excellent against bayonets .
The unit that was mentioned really should have better defense {the idea that European line infantry which lacked even helmets and used a weapon actually poorly ballanced for melee {a bayonetted musket or rifle} would have had better defense in melee than a maile armoured soldier {which given the expense of the armour , would have been atleast somewhat skilled in melee otherwise they would never have been giver or aquired the armour in the first place} is quite silly . They should probably have a good melee attack too .
Most tales of European troops being better in melee using bayonets than dedicated melee fighters with dedicated melee weapons is jingoistic B.S. somewhere along the line that either ignore numbers and other advantages on the line infantries' side or pretends that poorly trained civilians whom got their hands on an armory were actual warriors . Like most things in history , you have to wade through a lot of bollocks and use plenty of common sense to find out what actually happened .


I hope I didn't come across as rude or overly critical of you by the way . If I did I am sorry as it isn't my intention . I am a fair bit fuzzy at the moment {tired and sore} , just that it was one issue of history that always bugs me .
I'm betting there is a typo in there somewhere too

[Malkut]

Requesting Inuit Dogsleds of Doom in the next patch.

[Melvish]

Inuit have horses because CA mixed(confused) them with Innu witch used horses.

As a side note by 1759 most major Amerindian Nation had dropped the use of spear and bow for muskets.

[Sheogorath]

Incorrect , though given the vast amount of Victorian era ignorant tosh that passed for history that is still doing the rounds in popular mindset , you cannot be blamed too much for thinking so .

Even moderatly well made riveted mail would stop a bayonet thrust from Andre the Giant {though were he to indeed be hitting you it would certainly leave a bruise} and is virtually impervious to most muscle powered weapons .
Only the armour piercing spikes on warhammers and halberds and the like can actually penetrate it{and not every time either !} and only very heavy blows , such as from maces , can incapacitate the wearer with only one or a few hits places where the maile is protecting .
Weapons like swords and spears {and a bayonet is inferior to a spear} can only kill when hitting portions of their foe protected by riveted or welded {which was indeed used by the Ottomans and Persians both} maile if the blows are very many {which takes a long time giving the wearer ample opportunity to slay their attacker} . It is what knights wore on the first few Crusades and the Roman , Gauls , Greeks and others found it performed admirably against spear {which again are much better in melee than bayonets} .

That would largely depend on the TYPE of bayonet being used.

True, a knife bayonet (such as the plug types you initially get) wouldn't have much effect. However, the 'spike' types which are used later (ring and plugs) would be effective against mail. Rings have holes in them, and being flexible, would do little to stop a thrust from that type of bayonet. Even if the bayonet didn't go all the way through the ring, the fact that the armor flexes to some degree would mean that you could get a pretty good puncture wound.

Taken from the commanders point of view, if that wound is a gut wound, it's just as good as killing the enemy. Even in the modern day, gut wounds are treated very seriously. It only takes a little hole for infection to set in.

Now, multiple layers of mail would certainly be more effective, however, that would be both quite heavy and rather expensive, not something, I think, many people outside of officers or elite units would be wearing.

I hope I didn't come across as rude or overly critical of you by the way . If I did I am sorry as it isn't my intention . I am a fair bit fuzzy at the moment {tired and sore} , just that it was one issue of history that always bugs me .
I'm betting there is a typo in there somewhere too

It's fine, I try to avoid being one of the overly sensitive types who responds to any criticism with vitriol

[IvarrWolfsong]

Honestly, they just need to make native american infantry "stuck" in light infantry mode, reduce their reload and increase the melee ability. IRL their strength would come from moving fast and stealthfully (with out a ponderous supply train) through a land that they had better knowledge of. I don't know how they could simulate that but native Cherokee crusader knights and the 103rd Iroquois Mountain Howitzer division is not it.

Inuits are completely different than the other tribes. I am not aware of any great inuit military culture or raiding hordes. I think their special ability should be called "can_survive_in_arctic_or_tundra_unlike_european_armies"

[drone]

Requesting Inuit Dogsleds of Doom in the next patch.

[BeeSting]

Inuit have horses because CA mixed them with Innu witch used horses.

Lancers? please....

[Sheogorath]

Lancers? please....

Kind of depends on your definition of 'lancer'. I'd imagine that most anybody with access to horses thought of mounted spearmen.

[Melvish]

Lancers? please....

Granted, it is a bit exagerated that they are able to field regiment of lancers as only the most prominent tribe members could "afford" horses. They were quite rare in that region.

Innu were also called Cree and their close related cousin the Plain-Cree made extensive use of horses.
But it far stretching as to call their horses hordes: lancers...

[Megas Methuselah]

Innu were also called Cree and their close related cousin the Plain-Cree made extensive use of horses.
But it far stretching as to call their horses hordes: lancers...

Yeah, the nomadic Pains Cree lived in the Great Plains (yea, I live in the same land as my ancestors), and like most of the other plains nations, were born into the saddle. Try to think of the Asian steppe nomads.

However, I cannot speak for the use of horses amongst the rest of the tribes.

It's also too bad CA didn't bother with doing research about the placement of the native tribes. Instead, they decided to put well-heard-of tribes in whatever area they so chose. It didn't matter that the Chippewa Nations are currently spread all across Canada because of their earlier power and glory in this period, or that the Hurons were practically non-existant by this time, having been all but wiped out by the Five Nations the previous century, or that the Inuit homeland wasn't in Labrador and was far too insignificant anyways to be included as a faction, and that it doesn't make sense to include the wrongfully-done Inuit and leave the more populous areas of America to the south as "Wilderness," and so on. They might just as well have put the old Roman Republic in Sweden at the same time as Napoleon's Empire in Greece in the year 1700.

Not that any of you kids care, of course. This only catches your attention when you get frustrated over a few horsemen wiping your army all over the floor because you don't have any sense of generalship.

[Nelson]

Yeah, the nomadic Pains Cree lived in the Great Plains (yea, I live in the same land as my ancestors), and like most of the other plains nations, were born into the saddle.

Did they really use saddles?

[A Very Super Market]

CA also left out the West Coast completely. Justifiable, I suppose, but I'm still angry. And I'm not even Canadian.

Really, the native factions are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Too many musket units, too many artillery units, and a helluva too much cavalry. Furthermore, how the hell do you have lancers in a culture lacking horsemanship? Cherokee, Iroquois, Huron, Inuit, and Pueblo (Forgetting how inaccurate they represented anyways) are forest and desert dwellers. Absolutely ridiculous that they would have any sizable amount of horses, and especially LANCERS. WITHOUT SADDLES. WTF CA.

[Megas Methuselah]

Did they really use saddles?

That's beyond the point. Shut up.

EDIT: What was I supposed to say? They were born onto the back of a horse? Common!

[A Very Super Market]

Whats common? Horses? Sort of.

Also, Meth took all my ranting topics. I have nothing further to contribute except for.....

LOLCATS!!!!

No, I don't actually have anything to contribute. I still think the native factions need tweeking, no, upheaval.

[Megas Methuselah]

No, I don't actually have anything to contribute. I still think the native factions need tweeking, no, upheaval.

See?! Now even the uneducated working classes are threatening to revolt against the tyranny of blatant historical inaccuracy.