SP Medieval New Mod: “Europa - 1300 AD” (Updates, see page 39+40)

[Agent Griff]

I personally love the colour of the surcoats. I think it makes the mod look gritty. A few questions, though:

Will the English sergeants and French men-at-arms remain armed with swords, or will you increase the palette of weapons you can find your men equipped with? Like maces, axes and so forth. I realize that this is very much a work in progress, but I hope the weapons of the final version will be just as varied as the current clothing your troops can wear.

Also, for diversity's sake, it would be cool if the French men-at-arms and English sergeants had a random chance of starting with a horse, somewhat like Vaegir veterans and Khergit tribesmen. Historically, you could see them both on horses and on the ground, though I believe men at arms were somewhat more cavalry based and sergeants were something of a medium cavalry who could dismount at need to form reliable infantry. Generally, though, the above two units were one rung above general soldiery who were commonly equipped with a helmet, a gambeson and some mail, if they are lucky or have some wealth of their own.

 

[Al_Mansur]

I think that you should put the major faction of the Mamluks in the middle east.

EDIT : Oh sorry I hadn't seen that Africa and Asia aren't in your map 

 

[omzdog]

This mod doesnt take place in modern day if you havent noticed...

Oh I didn't know -_-

I can't put my finger on it but they just look a little odd to me. Idk if other people like them then perhaps its me.

 

[scr-master]

I haven't read everything so I don't know if it was already told. Are there some formations in your mod?
on the screenshots it looks like square and line formations

ps: Do you speak german?

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

I think that you should put the major faction of the Mamluks in the middle east.

EDIT : Oh sorry I hadn't seen that Africa and Asia aren't in your map 

Yes, the map does not include Africa, although part of Turkey is included.  If they were included, I would certainly be adding quite a few factions in the Middle East. 

I can't put my finger on it but they just look a little odd to me. Idk if other people like them then perhaps its me.

I'm sure it's not just you; everyone has their own opinion.  Hopefully you'll still be able to enjoy the mod when it comes out.

I personally love the colour of the surcoats. I think it makes the mod look gritty. A few questions, though:

Will the English sergeants and French men-at-arms remain armed with swords, or will you increase the palette of weapons you can find your men equipped with? Like maces, axes and so forth. I realize that this is very much a work in progress, but I hope the weapons of the final version will be just as varied as the current clothing your troops can wear.

Excellent point.  They will have more weapons than swords, yes.  I'm thinking that these soldiers will have swords, maces, military picks, and so on.  One thing I want to be cautious of is the ratio of weapons given out.  Say they choose between swords, maces, and military picks; the problem is that 2/3 of the weapons are blunt and will render enemies unconscious as opposed to killing them.  Only killing 1/3 of the enemies a soldier engages is rather below expectations, especially when dealing with the highest tier of infantry.  So perhaps I may want to manipulate the type of damage certain weapons deliver.

But to answer your question, yes, that is something I will pay attention to. 

Also, for diversity's sake, it would be cool if the French men-at-arms and English sergeants had a random chance of starting with a horse, somewhat like Vaegir veterans and Khergit tribesmen. Historically, you could see them both on horses and on the ground, though I believe men at arms were somewhat more cavalry based and sergeants were something of a medium cavalry who could dismount at need to form reliable infantry. Generally, though, the above two units were one rung above general soldiery who were commonly equipped with a helmet, a gambeson and some mail, if they are lucky or have some wealth of their own.

I'm all for diversity, but I think for organization's sake the division between infantry and cavalry units will be defined.  However, for these types of infantry there will also have mounted equivalents with the same type of armor, so that does touch on what you're saying. 

Thank for the support and the very good questions. 

I haven't read everything so I don't know if it was already told. Are there some formations in your mod?
on the screenshots it looks like square and line formations

ps: Do you speak german?

I do hope to have formations in the final mod, I think they're quite important for the time period and for using different types of troops effectively.  They are used in the screenshots to show how they would look in the game and because they really add to the effect.  The formations are thanks to the brilliance of Mirathei, who created the actual battlefield tactics kit. 

And I'm sorry, but I do not speak German. 

 

[Gintas]

i want to ask if you can be a king in this mod and have vessals  and if no you should make it then this mod would be much much beather and more interesting

 

[Marcos182]

SWWEEET love the textures, and the clothing looks awesome, very realistic as far as the whole used look n stuff! cant wait

 

[Marcos182]

oh! and one more thing, any chance of making the Crown of Aragon a faction?

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

i want to ask if you can be a king in this mod and have vessals  and if no you should make it then this mod would be much much beather and more interesting

Possibly.  This is something I've debated in my head quite a bit.  I've planned it so that typically (though not always), you start off at the bottom of the food chain and work your way up, though fighting in battles, winning tournaments, and then becoming a leader on your own.  I've always thought it'd be somewhat strange to start off as a peasant and become king in a short manner of time.  Stranger things have happened, but it struck me as a little off.

However, I do want people to have the option of being born with some noble heritage so at least it wouldn't be as odd to eventually become king. 

I think for the time being I will leave it as a possibility though it will certainly be modified and changed from the way it is done in Native. 

oh! and one more thing, any chance of making the Crown of Aragon a faction?

For the time being they are not included, as at this time they often worked with the Crown of Castile.  I may plan on adding more factions in the future, but for now I do not plan on it. 

 

[Agent Griff]

Hm, you mention tournaments. What kind of tournaments will there be in this mod?

Will you be including tournaments like in the 1257 mod? You know, the ones where the player and each combatant participates with their actual equipment from the campaign and every combatant (save some player companions who can be on foot) is mounted.

Or will you be making something different? As far as tourneys are concerned, I like the ones in 1257 the most and I believe the creator is planning to add both ransoming and a form of jousting besides the regular melee.

 

[Lukasz]

Excellent point.  They will have more weapons than swords, yes.  I'm thinking that these soldiers will have swords, maces, military picks, and so on.  One thing I want to be cautious of is the ratio of weapons given out.  Say they choose between swords, maces, and military picks; the problem is that 2/3 of the weapons are blunt and will render enemies unconscious as opposed to killing them.  Only killing 1/3 of the enemies a soldier engages is rather below expectations, especially when dealing with the highest tier of infantry.  So perhaps I may want to manipulate the type of damage certain weapons deliver.

Actually... not quite. From "A history of warfare" by John Keegan (one of the best reads in the field of warfare studies - highly recommended!) "It has been estimated that a phalanx might lose fifteen per cent of its strength by defeat, either through outright killing, death from wounds [..], or in the massacre which followed flight" - this in a conflict between units named, literally, "roller" and relying on unprecedented shock tactics. Unfortunately, there are no sources listed for that estimation, but given his high profile and animosity of certain other historians toward his work (he is very much anti-Clausewitz which irks the others ), I would assume his words to carry some weight. He also notes that the casualty ratio was limited somewhat by the Greek lack of tendency to pursue the fleeing opponents once the winner of the combat was determined. He also has (sourced, in fact) a study of wounds and casualties during medieval times mentioned in his brilliant "A Face of Battle," but I cannot, of course, find the bloody book right now. I need to roRganize my collection again...

In any case, the casualties for combat were actually pretty low - speaking strictly for the combat itself. A massacre could follow if the fleeing army was being pursued.

However, take under consideration the "code" of medieval combat and the fact that conflict itself was not the only motivation for a professional man at arms. Ransoming of captives had very, very high part in making the profession profitable, and while the poor certainly would be at disadvantage there, this tendency to grant quarter would have been instituted by the nobles if for the simple matter of own survival - were the men at arms not accustomed to taking prisoners, a nobleman fallen in combat himself might have worse chances of survival regardless of his wealth. Sometimes political expediency also dictated the annihilation of the opponent - such as in case of peasant uprising, or as a detriment of a particularly stubborn defender (city sieges come to mind), but that was not the norm. Which would actually make a large ratio of in-game opponents rendered unconscious far more historically accurate than the original mechanics, particularly if accounting for taking captives for ransom -during- combat (incidentally, I wonder how much the fact that you cannot kill the in-game nobles was dictated by the mechanics and how much by historical accuracy...).

"A Face of Battle" has quite a few passages to that effect, as do other works dealing with the subject. I would strongly (again) suggest Keegan given his extremely clear writing and reasoning in comparison to some other works.

And, a gamer to a gamer, let's face it - Medieval: Total War had the definite proof in its modeling of battle mechanics

I do hope to have formations in the final mod *snippy*

Hallelujah!

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

Hm, you mention tournaments. What kind of tournaments will there be in this mod?

Will you be including tournaments like in the 1257 mod? You know, the ones where the player and each combatant participates with their actual equipment from the campaign and every combatant (save some player companions who can be on foot) is mounted.

Or will you be making something different? As far as tourneys are concerned, I like the ones in 1257 the most and I believe the creator is planning to add both ransoming and a form of jousting besides the regular melee.

I have a few ideas for tournaments, which will be an important part of the game.  There will be the regular style tournaments as in Native, and I don't really have an issue with the arena combat, although there's no reason why that can't be changed. 

My main idea is having Ashby-de-la-Zouch (though that may be changed since I'd prefer to have it in France), where there will be a few combat options.  There will be a joust, which is the main feature, an archery competition, and a few other options (myself being not quite sure how to implement it, but I'll get to that when the time comes).  For tournaments, tournament armor will be assigned as well as a tournament helmet, which there are a few models floating around here. 

I really like your questions, by the way. 

Actually... not quite. From "A history of warfare" by John Keegan (one of the best reads in the field of warfare studies - highly recommended!) "It has been estimated that a phalanx might lose fifteen per cent of its strength by defeat, either through outright killing, death from wounds [..], or in the massacre which followed flight" - this in a conflict between units named, literally, "roller" and relying on unprecedented shock tactics. Unfortunately, there are no sources listed for that estimation, but given his high profile and animosity of certain other historians toward his work (he is very much anti-Clausewitz which irks the others ), I would assume his words to carry some weight. He also notes that the casualty ratio was limited somewhat by the Greek lack of tendency to pursue the fleeing opponents once the winner of the combat was determined. He also has (sourced, in fact) a study of wounds and casualties during medieval times mentioned in his brilliant "A Face of Battle," but I cannot, of course, find the bloody book right now. I need to roRganize my collection again...

The phalanx would have different casualty ratios, though, considering they were not as mobile as their later Roman counterparts, let alone medieval armies. 

In any case, the casualties for combat were actually pretty low - speaking strictly for the combat itself. A massacre could follow if the fleeing army was being pursued.

I'm not so much speaking of the combat ratios, though (although I figured someone would read it as such).  That's why I phrased it "Only killing 1/3 of the enemies a soldier engages is rather below expectations".  Often a good part of the lack of casualties comes from the fact that many soldiers would not be deployed during combat, reserves that were never brought up, and archers who did not have to engage in melee.  Of the soldiers who did engage in melee, though, I think it would not be good for high tier infantry to not inflict casualties. 

The issue is that in Mount & Blade, the functional use of wounding soldiers is taking captives, which I'm all for, but the majority of soldiers being wounded and not many killed is not really being efficient.  Commanders typically do not send in their best soldiers with the intent of taking prisoners, but rather inflicting heavy casualties.  There are other soldiers, such as light cavalry, who are better suited for taking prisoners.

Also you have to remember that in Mount & Blade a lot of things that occur in medieval battles (such as not deploying certain units, not calling on your reserves, or even fleeing and escaping the field) are not represented and that factors into lower casualty rates in medieval battles and higher percentages in Mount & Blade.  Armies in Mount & Blade can easily expect 90% + dead, which is something that did not happen all that often in the Middles Ages.  Doing just a brief survey of battles at the time, casualty rates had a wide range, with some as high as 1/3 dead, but with some around 1/8 dead.  So really the casualty rates are really an issue with Mount & Blade, and not this mod (which I am not looking to change the essential game mechanics). 

So it still stands that I prefer to have the heaviest infantry deploy weapons that kill and opposed to render unconscious, because I'm factoring in Mount & Blade casualty ratios.  The soldiers are expensive, well equipped, and reliable, but if they leave 2/3 of their enemies alive that creates two problems: for one, you're being most effective when killing the enemy, so it'd be a waste of funds if your soldiers simply wounded everyone.  For two, since 50 is the limit of prisoners, what can you do with the 30-40+ extra enemies who are wounded? 

Historically speaking casualty rates weren't nearly as high as Mount & Blade, but 1/3 dead as opposed to wounded isn't at all unrealistic.  Also, casualty rates factor the entire army, some of whom may not have even fought, unlike Mount & Blade.  For the game, and for this mod, I think it's most effective to have the highest tier infantry be effective and killing and not be highly armored Manhunters. 

 

[Lukasz]

snippy

You, sir, have just tripled my interest in this mod by the mere manner of your reply, and I humbly concede the accuracy of your points above

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

snippy

You, sir, have just tripled my interest in this mod by the mere manner of your reply, and I humbly concede the accuracy of your points above

You, sir, have humbled me.  Your posts have been well-informed, articulate, and above all - helpful.  I'm glad to hear you're even more interested, and I hope you continue to follow the progress. 

Cheers. 

 

[Lukasz]

You, sir, have humbled me.

No, no, my good sir, I insist that it was, indeed, you who has humbled me most profusely, and furthermore demand that this thrown glove be considered a token of the earnestness of my words.

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

No, no, my good sir, I insist that it was, indeed, you who has humbled me most profusely, and furthermore demand that this thrown glove be considered a token of the earnestness of my words.

No, good sir, my humility cannot be articulated in words and though I will accept the glove, I hope you accept my severely humble tip of the hat.


But to get back on topic, a general update:

Right now I'm in the process of taking the troop trees and deciding the fine details of them (i.e. the exact equipment a troop will be given).  I'm making good progress thus far, but I also have a lot of textures to get done, so I will be working steadily on that.  I'm also starting to look into scenes; whether I want to keep Native scenes, replace them, keep some, and so on.

I will post some more screenshots soon, though.

 

[Agent Griff]

Will all faction troops have English names? Or will you provide the names of troops in the native language, like Man-at-Arms for the English and Homme d'Armes for the French? It would certainly add to faction colour, though it could also add to player confusion since some players will not know what their troops will evolve to.

Also, if you need any help regarding the equipment of the age, feel free to ask me since I have a wealth of information lying around mainly in the form of Osprey books.

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

Will all faction troops have English names? Or will you provide the names of troops in the native language, like Man-at-Arms for the English and Homme d'Armes for the French? It would certainly add to faction colour, though it could also add to player confusion since some players will not know what their troops will evolve to.

For the most part, the faction troops will have English names.  There will be some exceptions to this, such as Rus Druzhina and Castile Caballero.  Other than some exceptions, they will mostly have English names. 

I agree that it would add to the colour, but in some cases, such as Hungarians and especially the Moors, it wouldn't be very user-friendly to use native language names.  I want people to get a sense of realism and diversity, but in some cases it would just result in headaches.  For that reason most will have English names with some exceptions.  I think the exceptions are appropriate because they will have context that will allow people to know what they're upgrading to. 

Also, if you need any help regarding the equipment of the age, feel free to ask me since I have a wealth of information lying around mainly in the form of Osprey books.

I appreciate the offer and may take you up on that sometime in the future (when I start moving out of my comfort zone). 

 

[skyler91]

awesome...

 

[D1SC0 N1NJ4]

this mod looks very good and i will be downloading it when it's released.... also when i say somethings good i mean its AWSOME!!