Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zsimmortal
I'm not sure what you define as heavy cavalry, but rarely (if ever) did Tatar or Turko-Mongol armies have heavy cavalry comparable to Europeans
They actually did, I seriously do not understand why is it so troubling to understand that everyone had nobles who could afford armor, even the Tatars and the Turks.
It is really not a difficult concept to figure out.
The average 12th/13th century Tatar/Turkic noble wore more armor than an average European noble, especially if we consider their horse barding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Slytacular
I have stopped looking at youtube videos of people shooting arrows into armour because there are many results that show the armour either being penetrated or deflective.
You should not abandon video evidence, but should rather just be critical of them.
Of course there are videos of armors being penetrated, but those videos always show some LARP festival tinfoil instead of properly hammered and forged armor.
What you can do however, is accept video testing done by actual historians with degrees and test done in controlled environment, like these ones;
Testing of longbow bodkin point, simulating 140 lb warbow fired at point blank(few meters) range;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk
Testing done by the British Royal Armories to test the deflective capability of curved plates;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8FGmqU25JQ
Basically, all videos and tests that show that armor works are those done properly.
There is a very good reason why people spent mountains of gold on armor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Slytacular
It really depends on the quality of the metal, the quality of the arrowhead, distance, power, weather, and maybe temperature.
Yes it does, and every single one of those goes in favor of the armor, for armor works the same in all situations, while the performance of bows can be weakened by everything you just mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Slytacular
ll factors and qualities are easily assumed because the weapons and armour of the time are not carefully factory made.
Which again goes in favor for the armor, because modern tests are done with both armor and arrowhead being of the same quality of metal, while historically armors were usually made of higher quality steel and were hammer hardened and often forge/process hardened while the vast majority of arrowhead findings that we have are low processed low grade wrought iron.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zsimmortal
I'm not sure what you define as heavy cavalry, but rarely (if ever) did Tatar or Turko-Mongol armies have heavy cavalry comparable to Europeans, later Turkish cavalry (like the Ottoman Sipahi) or even armored cavalry like some of the Mamluks. They were comparatively wearing windbreakers.
[Can't edit on these forums for some reason]
While horse archers didn't just mow down enemy armies but had multiple uses on the battlefield, such as cover and luring opponents, they didn't need to have heavily armored troops to beat back and rout opponents, their armies had a lot of spear-equipped cavalry to engage. Their horse archers usually carried spears too if I'm not mistaken.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marius Marich
They actually did, I seriously do not understand why is it so troubling to understand that everyone had nobles who could afford armor, even the Tatars and the Turks.
It is really not a difficult concept to figure out.
The average 12th/13th century Tatar/Turkic noble wore more armor than an average European noble, especially if we consider their horse barding.
I'd love to read about this, because the most armour I've read them wearing consisted of some mail, mostly fabric/leather armour. Not until Timur came were Mongol/Turko-Mongol wearing heavier armor.
It's not even a question of wealth, it's a question of how they fought and also how much weight could smaller horses carry without being significantly slowed down. But yes, Turkish armies had adopted heavier armor over time. I'm not against it. 13th century Mongol hordes did not as far I can tell. I'll gladly be proven wrong however.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zsimmortal
[Can't edit on these forums for some reason]
You have to wait until you have 15 or 30 posts I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zsimmortal
While horse archers didn't just mow down enemy armies but had multiple uses on the battlefield, such as cover and luring opponents
Of course they did, they had many uses no other type of warrior could be able to do, which is why they were extremely useful.
I am not debating their usefulness, I am debating their deadliness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zsimmortal
they didn't need to have heavily armored troops to beat back and rout opponents, their armies had a lot of spear-equipped cavalry to engage.
Those lance equipped cavalry was the heavy cavalry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zsimmortal
Their horse archers usually carried spears too if I'm not mistaken.
No, their horse archers carried swords, short axes/maces etc. , however, they were lightly armored, meaning they would be wiped out by anything with armor or arrows if they came close to them.
Good foot archers/crossbowmen are the death of horse archers.
"Whoever wishes to fight the Mongols should also have these weapons as well; a good bow and the crossbow, which they fear, and enough arrows." - Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, 1247-49
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marius Marich
Of course they did, they had many uses no other type of warrior could be able to do, which is why they were extremely useful.
I am not debating their usefulness, I am debating their deadliness.
The point is that most of their other uses will just disappear in the game. The HAs in Attila are ridiculously overpowered and I don't want that, but there's gonna have to be something to make them worth the investment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marius Marich
Those lance equipped cavalry was the heavy cavalry.
Like I said, it depends what you call heavy cavalry, but those tunics with scale-ish armor over them hardly compares to heavy European cavalry, especially the later ones, or heavy ottoman cavalry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marius Marich
No, their horse archers carried swords, short axes/maces etc. , however, they were lightly armored, meaning they would be wiped out by anything with armor or arrows if they came close to them.
Makes sense enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marius Marich
Good foot archers/crossbowmen are the death of horse archers.
"Whoever wishes to fight the Mongols should also have these weapons as well; a good bow and the crossbow, which they fear, and enough arrows." - Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, 1247-49
Don't disagree with this.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Is the size of the horses in the preview pics already final or are some of them getting a bit bigger?
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zsimmortal
Like I said, it depends what you call heavy cavalry, but those tunics with scale-ish armor over them hardly compares to heavy European cavalry, especially the later ones, or heavy ottoman cavalry.
Well, heavy cavalry is more of a battlefield role than an equipment description, but there are images depicting them with loads of armor on;
http://i.imgur.com/lvYWCww.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pSgVzsT.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NmquTr0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KI01KoU.jpg
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marius Marich
Yes, something like this
http://www.forensicfashion.com/files...orIrving01.jpg
It doesn't exactly make heavy armor. But yes, there was shock cavalry in Mongol armies, in roughly 50/50 fashion with ranged cavalry iirc. Regardless, the whole point was that making Horse archers anything close to real-life 'deadliness' is generally going to lead to severely reducing horse archer usefulness in-game because they're simply not going to be able to equate to their battlefield usefulness.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zsimmortal
It doesn't exactly make heavy armor.
Believe it or not, that is actually heavier than a full suit of plate.
For instance, a few sets of Jurchen armor reconstructions were weighted at 80lbs, which is about a third heavier than an average full suit of gothic plate.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marius Marich
Believe it or not, that is actually heavier than a full suit of plate.
For instance, a few sets of Jurchen armor reconstructions were weighted at 80lbs, which is about a third heavier than an average full suit of gothic plate.
I might be wrong about this, but I thought Northern China armored horsemen were extremely heavily armoured. Also possibly had poorer quality material or something to that effect which made them overcompensate. I can't say I know too much about this.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zsimmortal
I might be wrong about this, but I thought Northern China armored horsemen were extremely heavily armoured. Also possibly had poorer quality material or something to that effect which made them overcompensate.
Yes they were and their armor was very similar to the Mongol reconstruction you put above;
http://i.imgur.com/vsYhO6Z.jpg
Their cavalry was not unusually heavy because of the thickness of the horsemans armor but rather because they really liked to equip their horses with thick barding when doing so was still rarely done.
Hence their reputation.
Mail and lamellar weight just as much or even more than armor made out of long plates, because such armors do not have the rigidity to absorb force of impact and thus, need thicker padding underneath.
That is why a full suit of samurai armor is just as heavy as a full suit of plate, even though it does not cover nearly as much of the body.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marius Marich
Yes they were and their armor was very similar to the Mongol reconstruction you put above;
http://i.imgur.com/vsYhO6Z.jpg
Their cavalry was not unusually heavy because of the thickness of the horsemans armor but rather because they really liked to equip their horses with thick barding when doing so was still rarely done.
Hence their reputation.
Mail and lamellar weight just as much or even more than armor made out of long plates, because such armors do not have the rigidity to absorb force of impact and thus, need thicker padding underneath.
That is why a full suit of samurai armor is just as heavy as a full suit of plate, even though it does not cover nearly as much of the body.
Very interesting stuff. Still doesn't change the fact that horse archers will need to be fairly strong and not accurately deadly :tongue:.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pinarius
Is the size of the horses in the preview pics already final or are some of them getting a bit bigger?
I am not sure the size of horses can be changed, but the size of the riders can be changed, so yeah , they can be made smaller or bigger.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
How much turns/year are planned ? Plz less than 1.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Cant edit my post... Meant more than 1 turns.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
I just thought of something, have the English Earldoms as one faction makes little sense to me. It can easily overpower London. And not just one Earldom would rebel, they all would, if it happened.
Make them five factions with the same faction list as each other.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
The way the game is designed one faction with five regions is less powerfull than 5 factions with one region...
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
I know you have been looking for some suggestions of what factions should be playable. I am curious to know how many factions you are able to make playable, like, what number? And are you sure you are able to get the family tree to function for all of them? Last time I checked modders were having issues with the family tree when adding/changing previously unplayable factions.
Regardless of this number, I thought around 20 would be plenty and feature most of the factions players will be interested in. My tentative list is as follows:
-England
-Scotland
-Ireland
-Denmark
-Holy Roman Empire
-France
-Aragon/Castile
-Portugal
-Almorads
-Ayyubids
-Teutonic Order
-Hungary
-Latin Empire
-Kiev
-Mongols
-Crusader States
-Venice
-Abassids
-Georgia
-Rum/Nicaea
Again, just a suggestion and a starting off point for discussion and collaboration. I am not affiliated with the mod team.
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Ok, this list asks itself for it :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheIronTyrant
-England
-Scotland
-Ireland
-Denmark
-Holy Roman Empire
-France
-Aragon/Castile
-Portugal
-Almorads
-Ayyubids
-Teutonic Order
-Hungary
-Latin Empire
-Kiev
-Mongols
-Crusader States
-Venice
-Abassids
-Georgia
-Rum/Nicaea
http://i.iplsc.com/ze-strony-you-for...OT2V6-C102.jpg
Re: Medieval Kingdoms Total War Suggestion Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KAM 2150
I left that one out intentionally actually because I wasn't sure which Poland was the one that they have the client states of the rest. I am assuming it would be Greater Poland, but not sure. I also wanted to keep it to a nice round number. Again, the list wasn't meant to be a complete and final list, just a starting off point for discussion. I know the devs were discussing that they weren't quite sure where to start, other than the 2-4 confirmed factions and 2-3 factions which are not going to be playable.