More on units (another rant)...

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Finellach
(1)Hehe...it would be good if by some miracle devs would add the pavise shield to Crossbowmen. That would be nice. :D

(2)Btw. I though a bit and I don't agree that there is a need for Turkic Swordsmen. There are already Janissaries who are equally skilled in hand-to-hand skirmishes and in ranged combat with the bow. Esentially they are two units in one. Thus the need for Turkic Swordsmen and Turkic Archers as separate units is a mystery to me...:confused: 1. I don't want to add pavise to Swiss or italian crossbowmen. It would bwe silly because they didn't use it. Why make number of units lower if those who are there, but don't need to be, can be replaced by some other who are missing.

When Longbowmen were originally from Wales, used in England, in KoH available in Wales and aprox.4English realms, Highlanders are in Scotland and norhern England: 3-4 realms, why not add pavise crossbowmen for Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia + maybe Krakow and closest hungarian realm (hussites made raids to nowadays Slovakia and ruled some parts of "Upper Hungary" for more than 1/4century)

2. I agree. So another arabic swordsmen. One !common arabic" Saracens in comparison to European Highlanders, Templars, Teutons, Men-at-Arms, Roman infantry and axe units would be little unfair too.

[Drake Maethor]

Originally posted by Gorgoroth
Hobilars in Lithuania?! :beek:

Don't be a brute! :nono:

I never said there were hobillars in Lithuania. Yet their main force was a Light cavalry armed with light spears who was very fond of skirmishes.


Well the Hobilars were famous...what was that cavalry type in Lithuania what is so requested? I never heard about them. :rolleyes:
Still you lads are sorta right, if Ireland will have a special unit, Lithuania should have one as well, it was a major power in a period.

You want their name? OK
Do you know why hobilars where called like that?
"The name Hobilar is generally assumed to have come from the native Irish horse upon which he rode whom the Normans called the ‘hobby’, probably similar if not an actual reference to today’s hardy Connemara pony." about Hobilars (http://www.geocities.com/na_degadmedieval_ireland/Irish-Horsemen-History-and-Equipment.html)
Now if you want a name for the Lithuanian cavalry then ask any Lithuanian which is the name for the local horse.
Ask Heretic for example, who seems to know a lot about horses. And you got your name.

[Finellach]

Originally posted by Elewyn
1. I don't want to add pavise to Swiss or italian crossbowmen. It would bwe silly because they didn't use it. Why make number of units lower if those who are there, but don't need to be, can be replaced by some other who are missing.

Making a separate unit just to add a shield seems pointless to me.

When Longbowmen were originally from Wales, used in England, in KoH available in Wales and aprox.4English realms, Highlanders are in Scotland and norhern England: 3-4 realms, why not add pavise crossbowmen for Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia + maybe Krakow and closest hungarian realm (hussites made raids to nowadays Slovakia and ruled some parts of "Upper Hungary" for more than 1/4century)

Well Hussites didn't existed before 15th century. Besides I already said Corssbowmen should be available in Bohemia, Germany, Baltics(Prussia) and maybe Poland. But making a separate unit that will have almost the same name and will not be different than a regular Crossbowmen seems pointless to me.

[Drake Maethor]

I hate this thread...
Many posts in short time.

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Finellach
Making a separate unit just to add a shield seems pointless to me.

Well Hussites didn't existed before 15th century. Besides I already said Corssbowmen should be available in Bohemia, Germany, Baltics(Prussia) and maybe Poland. But making a separate unit that will have almost the same name and will not be different than a regular Crossbowmen seems pointless to me. that is mostly right. But they will have not only shield, but also chainmail f.e.

Regarding armour-difference between swordsmen and men-at-arms, thay are far more the same than hussites and crossbowen. Templars and Normans are far more similar by armour and weapons.

Also armour is not the only diference among units, different skills for hussites are possible: more like "peasants", not very disciplined, but very brave when defending their homeland(little like feudals little like highlanders, but not exactly ofcourse), slower due to heavier armour, but better armoured.

But yes, they are from early 15th century, that's true. I started to think about them when thinking abut how will "heavy crossbowmen" look like ;)

I hate this thread...
Many posts in short time. :cheers: hard to read them all, bacause during your posting some other 2 emerge :)

[Drake Maethor]

Originally posted by Elewyn
we probably havent heard of them because, honestly, we don't know much about whole Baltic region and whole Eastern Europe. Tell me how many things do you know about western Europe in comparison to Eastern Europe. You as Eastern European guy. In the west it's even worse. (by Eastern Europe now I mean former communist block, by Western especially England and France). The West is selling it's history and culture better than the East. But it's little off-topic

He speaks the truth!

[Drake Maethor]

macemen, macemen, macemen!

Where there macemen as a whole regiment in medieval times???
:confused: :confused: :confused:
I never liked macemen too much because I don't recall seeing (in a film or book) or reading about a whole pack of units fighting only with maces!!! (well, maybe some flemish special units in LOTR3 but that's a game!).
Wouldn't be better, MORE REAL AND MORE ORIGINAL that instead of adding macemen as a unit they would add some kind of militia that would carry any cheap one handed weapons like axes, maces and short swords??? (I mean a mixed weapons militia) And maybe with leather armor.
It would represent peasants going to war with any weapon they would find. Which is more medieval than adding an entire pack of JUST MACEMEN!
And then you say that there are unnecesary units! Come on! Macemen are a totally unnecesary unit!!!
But please, if I'm wrong correct me!

And if I'm not, them imagine that some men-at-arms are using maces! I don't know what would be different only that graphics! :p
Ask if you like that they draw some maces to the men at arms! You may have my support them. But I don't see the point in taking away units just to add squads of macemen!!! which again, for me is unreal! (also I don't see the point in it)
And nobody would use them anyway.

In fact I believe that the general rule in the Middle Ages was that anyone in the infantry would use the weapon that he wanted! (Not considering polearms weapons and units).

[Siautas]

Originally posted by Drake Maethor
@Siena and my lady Heretic: thanks for the info. ;)

Thy patrioticism and the fight of thy brethen inspires me friend.
And at the light of history my mind is set!
Devs, How can you give to this nation the units of their ancestors' enemies? :nono:
MY CHRISTIAN SWORD FOR THY CAUSE!
ZEIMATIS NEPRAZUS! :cheers:

(BTW, do you have good beer in Lithuania? :D)



lol. Tnx for good words.:cheers: and for interesting link.

Yes we have really good beer with old traditions. Normal beer is about 5 perc. of alkohol till 9.5 per. of alcohol (http://www.rinkuskiai.lt/apiealu/zaibo_stiklas.php).

Links to main Lithuanian beer producers:
Birþø "Rinkuðkiai" - www.rinkuskiai.lt
• Klaipëdos "Ðvyturys" - www.svyturys.lt
• "Utenos Alus" - www.utenosalus.lt
• Panevëþio "Kalnapilis" - www.kalnapilis.lt
• Kauno "Ragutis" - www.ragutis.lt
• Ðiauliø "Gubernija" - www.gubernija.lt
• "Kauno Alus" - www.kaunoalus.lt
• Vilniaus "Sigrama" - sigrama.alutis.lt
• Kretingos "Juozo Alus" - www.hbhjuozas.lt
• Klaipëdos "Memelis" - www.memelis.lt
• Kauno ir Vilniaus "Avilys" - www.avilys.lt
• Maþeikiø "Lokys" - www.lokioalus.lt
• "Birþu Alus" - www.birzualus.lt
• "Vilkmergës Alus" - www.vilkmergesalus.lt
• Vilniaus "Tauras" - www.tauroalus.lt

"ZEIMATIS NEPRAZUS"...:eek: :eek: IO see you can understand Lithuanian :bday:

[Bagpipe]

Originally posted by Drake Maethor


Now, at the light of all this, we can say that the Lithuanian armies fought with an skirmishing style, using specially light cavalry forces and maybe some armored ones, the Samogitan cavalry. Reading about their use of mounted units armed with spears that relyed on their high speed to fight against a more heavily armed forces I couldn't help but remember the Irish hobilars fighting the heavier Norman cavalry in Ireland.
So if Ireland has a special an unique light skirmishing cavalry, then why the Lithuanians doesn't deserve one?.

Honestly, I think such type of cavalry is typical to most of "more native" and not so well developed (pagan?) countries in medieval period. I mean inhabitants of outlying forested lands, like Balts or Irish.

BTW, do you have good beer in Lithuania?

You better believe.
Our beer usually wins medals in various international competitions:)
eh... but what point to speak. Come and try it:D

But one interesting piece of info here in this new source:
It is about the use of the Boyars. Here it says that the Lithuanian used Boyars, read:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Boyars

The Boyars provided the 'heavy' cavalry element of the Lithuanian armies. Lithuanian Boyars never adopted the heavy plate of the Western nations. Their armour would have been a mix of chain, scale or even leather. Some Western style armour did begin to appear amongst the wealthiest Boyars. Grand Duke Vyataus is recorded as wearing Plate armour at Tannenberg, hiding it under a dark cloak. His seal of the late 14 Century also shows him wearing plate. The fighting style and rapid movement of Lithuanian armies appeared to have limited its adoption. Boyars also retained the shield far longer than their Western neighbours. The main weapon was a Light lance called a spisa.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So did Lithuanians used boyars or by boyars this guy means Lithuanian nobles? Or perhaps the term "boyar" was used after the union with Poland... Opinions?

You see in this period Lithuanian warfare was far more affected by "foreign trends" then in 13ct. Some omens of knighthood appeared, some Russian influence (so many Russian lands and Russian people annexed) and so on. The dynastic agreement (or union, as you say, but I don't like this word) with Poland also. "Boyars" is a result of this Slavic influence. This word ("Bajorai" in Lithuanian) became the main describing Lithuanian nobility in following centuries (15, 16, 17ct). Till then, when Lithuanian were pagans, the period this game is focused on, unique cavalry and insignificant nobility (mixed with Boyars from Russian vasal states) dominated in battlefields.

we probably havent heard of them because, honestly, we don't know much about whole Baltic region and whole Eastern Europe. Tell me how many things do you know about western Europe in comparison to Eastern Europe. You as Eastern European guy. In the west it's even worse. (by Eastern Europe now I mean former communist block, by Western especially England and France). The West is selling it's history and culture better than the East.

Totally agree. That's why we have so many "British" unique units:)

Hobilars in Lithuania?!

Impossible. The possible options:
1. Not to make Lithuanian (Baltic) cavalry at all. (don't choose it, please:D )
2. To make as separate unit. (Would be great:go: )
3. To extend arrea of Hobilars and to rename them to javelin cavalry or sth like that (well... I won't mind)
4. To make separate Javelin Cavalry (or sth like that) unit and to place it to some territories, including Baltics (better then 3rd option, IMHO)
5. To rename Hobilars to Baltic cavalry and to change areas (JOKE, OF COURSE :D )

If you let me to express my imagination, I could draw my Baltic cavalry unit:
Sth like hobilar, but with throwable spear, sword (good in hand-to-hand combat but equally skilled in throwing spear), bigger shield(optional), fast.

That's all.
Thx for your patience:)

[Gorgoroth]

Originally posted by Bagpipe

Impossible. The possible options:
1. Not to make Lithuanian (Baltic) cavalry at all. (don't choose it, please:D )
2. To make as separate unit. (Would be great:go: )
3. To extend arrea of Hobilars and to rename them to javelin cavalry or sth like that (well... I won't mind)
4. To make separate Javelin Cavalry (or sth like that) unit and to place it to some territories, including Baltics (better then 3rd option, IMHO)
5. To rename Hobilars to Baltic cavalry and to change areas (JOKE, OF COURSE :D )


Yes, maybe we dont know anything about the Baltic regions, that is why a Baltic UU [unique unit - special unit] would be weird.
Anyways, as I said before, the animation/gfx of the Hobilar could be used for the Baltic Cavalry. It shouldnt be hard to add.
However I dont know that what is the devs opinion about this 'hysteria'. As I see the devs are ignoring this thread. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Siautas

Links to main Lithuanian beer producers:
Birþø "Rinkuðkiai" - www.rinkuskiai.lt
• Klaipëdos "Ðvyturys" - www.svyturys.lt
• "Utenos Alus" - www.utenosalus.lt
• Panevëþio "Kalnapilis" - www.kalnapilis.lt
• Kauno "Ragutis" - www.ragutis.lt
• Ðiauliø "Gubernija" - www.gubernija.lt
• "Kauno Alus" - www.kaunoalus.lt
• Vilniaus "Sigrama" - sigrama.alutis.lt
• Kretingos "Juozo Alus" - www.hbhjuozas.lt
• Klaipëdos "Memelis" - www.memelis.lt
• Kauno ir Vilniaus "Avilys" - www.avilys.lt
• Maþeikiø "Lokys" - www.lokioalus.lt
• "Birþu Alus" - www.birzualus.lt
• "Vilkmergës Alus" - www.vilkmergesalus.lt
• Vilniaus "Tauras" - www.tauroalus.lt




Woohooo! We really dont know anything about Lithuania! :D

[Siautas]

Originally posted by Gorgoroth
...However I dont know that what is the devs opinion about this 'hysteria'. As I see the devs are ignoring this thread. :rolleyes:

I:angry: Yes I know they are busy, but I'm busy man too. Somebody is telling me that they not respect us (who are interesting in "new units topic") too much...:( All they managed to write that they don't plan any new units... It's so difficult to say why?

Why can't be Balts cavalry in your game? Don't you really want that we got satisfaction playing KOH?:mad: :( :( :(

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Siautas
Somebody is telling me that they not respect us (who are interesting in "new units topic") too much...:( Who?
Because he is a liar!

Frank wrote thet the list is final, but just after Mameluks were transfered to mounted units. Maybe the number is final and we may hope for some changes.

I think that more unique units for some more regions means more fun than having 2-3 unique units for one region (Pronoias/Cataphracts, Janissary/Turks archer/Turkic swordsmen)

[Gorgoroth]

Originally posted by Elewyn

I think that more unique units for some more regions means more fun than having 2-3 unique units for one region (Pronoias/Cataphracts, Janissary/Turks archer/Turkic swordsmen)


Uhm....I wouldnt call those turkic units unique, Elewyn!!
Those were the normal units in the turkish armies. The Swordsmen for example was a common unit in whole Europe, but not in the Turkish armies. Well they had swordsmen, but imho these nation specific units will fit lot better for the turkish side, than a normal swordsman/archer.
Different animations / gfx for the units is a must have in that region, I think it would be very weird to see normal 'European' looking swordsman from that area. :cool:

[Siautas]

I'm talking about Balts cavalry... some people in this forum are woring about this. Is it so dificult to say what is wrong with this unit? That's all.:rolleyes:

[Elewyn]

Right, but Janissary are both swordsmen and archer! So at least one of those 3 is senseless IMO. I personally will kick off turkic archers because it's almost synonyme to Janissary :)

[Gorgoroth]

Originally posted by Elewyn
Right, but Janissary are both swordsmen and archer! So at least one of those 3 is senseless IMO. I personally will kick off turkic archers because it's almost synonyme to Janissary :)

That is true. Janissary should be used as swordsman in the game IMHO.

[Finellach]

Janissaries were both ranged and melee infantry. They were extremly versatile and thats why they were so succesful. For me it is absurd to have Turkic Swordsemen and Archers both as separate units or having them at all since there are Janissaries. :rolleyes:

[Gorgoroth]

Originally posted by Finellach
Janissaries were both ranged and melee infantry. They were extremly versatile and thats why they were so succesful. For me it is absurd to have Turkic Swordsemen and Archers both as separate units or having them at all since there are Janissaries. :rolleyes:

Yeah...sorta true. Hmm maybe the janissaries should be the main archer units with a weaker melee skill. There should be a normal turkic swordsman unit with better melee skills, thus we wont need the turkish archers than = 1 free unit slot.


However historically there were other 'normal' turkish archers units not just janissaries. Same for infantry.

[Siena]

Originally posted by Drake Maethor
MORE ABOUT THE LITHUANIAN TROOPS AND TACTICS!
(that means more reinforcements! heheh :cheers: )

lithuania 1350 AD to 1500 AD (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywood/main/Lithuania.htm#Tactics)

That is a web page with info for use in that same miniatures game (which seems to be called BDE).

Allright, more on the Lithuanian Tactics:

To highlight: Here again it talks about the odd use of the bow by the Lithuanian cavalry: the fact that they would dismount when the battlefield was unsuited for cavalry actions.
It seems that these lads really used skirmishing tactics!

But one interesting piece of info here in this new source:
It is about the use of the Boyars. Here it says that the Lithuanian used Boyars, read:

So did Lithuanians used boyars or by boyars this guy means Lithuanian nobles? Or perhaps the term "boyar" was used after the union with Poland... Opinions?

Hi Drake Maethor,

the source you found is simply fruit of the immagination of the guy that wrote it.
It is very interesting, but not really fitting to form an opinion about Lithuanian army or tactics.

Most of historical books mentions that Lithuanians preffered throwing sprear instead of bow. They used bows, but not prevalently.
Many sources mention, that Lithuanians used Russian archers and Lett crosbowmen.

Lithuanian nobles came to be called "boyars" later - a borrowed term from slavic neighbors.
Originaly - Lithuanian nobles called themselves "kunigaikstis" - which is now translated as "Duke".

Anyway - in games terms - "boyar" - defines the unit for Rus and some other slavic factions.
It just does not fit for Lithuania. Lithuanian and Rus nobles were people from completely different cultures, religions. They belonged to different armies, used different weapons and fighting styles.

Lithuanians spent most of their time fighting Western military, while Russians mostly fought in steppes - Mongols and each other. Except for Novgorod, which had a few battles with Livonians.

Oh, and Lithuanian beer is the best in the world!!!! :)
The closest thing to it is Czech beer, in my opinion.
No other beer comes even close.....

:cheers:

[chefo]

Guys, I see that there are lots of opinions flying around... :)

Here are my 2 cents:)

Here are just a couple of things to consider:

1.) Janissaries were regular army and should only be available to Ottomans. There maybe, however, other Turkic states such as Seljuks (Sultanate of Rum). Such states should not get Janissaries but another sword unit. In many Turksih/Arabic armies (especially in Syria and the Holy Land) the common infantry were conscripted and were of poor quality.

2.) There is the 'bashibozuk' Turkish infantry that were "volunteers" of the Jihad. They were irregulars that were good for raids but not much more. Perhaps the Turkic swordsman is meant to represent them.

3.) Pronoiars were a type of cavalry that should be available in both Serbia and Bulgaria (from 12th century on). The fact is that some Boyars were Pronoiars but not all Pronoiars were Boyars:)... this system spread throughout the Balkans as the Slavic states copied their government structures upon secession from the Byzantines. Also, it might be somewhat confusing but pronoiars and cataphracts did not exist in the same time period. Generally, the last time the Byzantines fielded proper clibanarii, was the battle of Manzikert. From the early 12thh century on, the Byzantines did not have a standing national unit of extra-heavy cavalry. Instead they recruited Norman knights and their own provincial nobility (or what was left from it) which lived off taxes collected from the pronoias which they were given charge of...


4.) Spear armed, skirmishing cavalry was hardly unique to the Baltic regions. In fact, one could find such troopers in the Spanish kingdoms (jinetes), Greece, Albania and Croatia (stradiots), Serbia (gussars), Hungary (hussars), England (border horse), Wallachia, Moldova, Armenia, Georgia and so on...

5.)Ghulams and Mameluks were in essence the same thing (well-armored, well-disciplined slave soldiers). The one difference was that Mameluks were taught to direct their arrow barrage at an entire zone, much like longbowmen firing from horseback.

6.) Desert cavalry is not the same as either Ghulams or Mameluks. The former were irregular troops of lower quality, worse equipment (lower morale?) while the latter were regular troops who spent their lives fighting. I would assume that the desert cavalry takes the place of the light cavalry in those African areas.


Chefo