SP Musket Era Csatádi's Visual and Historical Mod

[Vercynogetorix]

In terms of  your 'light' sentiment, it's not exactly correct, they would always field  heavy cavalry after Mongol style and would frequently use heavy armor.

Just check their equipment. Even nokhors have only plated mail aka yushman which is nowhere near compared to cuirasses.
Others have mostly mail thus they're even worse.
With sabers they cannot really hurt for example the heavily armored hussars.
I think that's why they are worse.

Youre talking effectivness here. Anyhow the problem is with ratios; in any army Nokhors would be perhaps 1,500 - 2,000 to 30,000 yasak/bajrak troops. Hardly a impacting force.

Improving archery might be achieved by increasing units' power draw skill. Archery is powerful if you improve your character to lvl 6 power draw so there is nothing wrong with bows themselves.

Surely power draw (which i would consider eliminating) and archery skill?

Their weakness was not in armor but in the fact that most of their economy was based on nomads and could never field them enough after surrounding feudal states started improving their own economies.

Maybe but they were capable to send 40 or 60k men for example against Transylvania and Vienna. This is more what the Swedish sent against the Commonwealth. Again few thousands of decent troops to hold the line and tens of thousands bajrak and yasak levy.

Kinda saxon approach; field housecarls at the first line and give them tons of fyrds leavened with mercenaries at the back

I'm quite interested your sources about janissaries wearing armor. It's common sense some might wear them but it doesn't mean all or a significant ratio had armor.

Topkapi Museum papers (in 90's they had pl language papers, read some then). The rest of sentiment correct; few and mainly officers would wear armor.

Nokhor 2
Mirza 2
Bey 2
Cebelu 5
Circassian 3
Oglan 5
Yasak 5
Nogai 5
Bajrak 5
Janissaries 3
Timariot 5
Kapikulu 5
Azap 5

What are these numbers? Troop level? Skills? Abilities?

Numbers

Btw. I did managed to resolve winged issue of Husars; they started to migrate towards twin wings around 1585 and usually were twin wings by 1660; the cessure around 1635 in favour of twin. Officers no wings.

I'm happy there is no problem with those. Do you have and sources anyway?

Academic papers to which i was pointed by a friend

Nokhor should be very expensive troops (we should have address economy issues at some stage). Brunt of forces should then fall upon household guards (Kapikulu cavalry) and Oglan noble lancers with mass of skirmish archers being yasak/bajrak and Timariot/Kapikulu behind screen of halberd wielding azaps and reinforced by some janissaries.

Thanks but there is no need for so much details. Cost depend on the level - at least the monthly payment. I suppose I can edit the hiring cost but I bet those are also depend on their level.
Which is important is unit name, skill level (with numbers) , equipment.

Here i think i need to give you some charts

I checked janissaries are quite downgraded. They're worst shooters between the elite marksmen. Their melee is a bit better but it doesn't matter a lot. Just se the serduks, lifeguards, german musketeers. Only the new order marksmen are worse. I think they should be quite good, they were the turkish elite infantry after all.

YES

You said to delete a type. It is possible only if there is another unit from that commander. There cannot be a commander without recruitable troops.

I said to replace a type with Kapikulu household guard cavalry

 

[mikeboix]

Nokhor 2
Mirza 2
Bey 2
Cebelu 5
Circassian 3
Oglan 5
Yasak 5
Nogai 5
Bajrak 5
Janissaries 3
Timariot 5
Kapikulu 5
Azap 5

What are these numbers? Troop level? Skills? Abilities?

Numbers

 

[Antonis]

Yeah, that was funny.

 

[Easter Cow]

 

[Vercynogetorix]

ojtam ojtam. Numbers are numbers, troop numbers.

Anyhow; @csatadi

1. What do you think about using old/modern denomination for some of the gear?

Eg this would be old husar armor in 1650

Spoiler

Note rounded bottom (there actually should be less riveted elements at the bottom; but it seems this is transition model (older versions usually had 3 elements and newer 5)

This is very old type; fell into disuse in lat XVI cent; though im sure some would be seen in battle still for a while

this would be normal;

Spoiler

Note sharper bottom and more riveted pieces

There would be no modern for husaria; but there would be for pancerni (cuirass) and dragoons (old: vanilla; normal: "wołodyjowski" leather; modern: swedish like from your mod)

2. Due to there being so many changes i have trouble keeping track of things; should i make a separate post on the subject (so not to detract your thread) or should we perhaps use some free kanban (trello?) tool for this information?


btw this is correct look of husar armor:

Spoiler

YES MAJORITY WAS PURPOSEFULLY BLACKENED TO PREVENT RUSTING; MUSEUMS USUALLY RETURN THEM TO GLISTENING

 

[Csatádi]

@vercynogetorix

'Old' classification in the game generally means something is worse by about 20-25%.
I don't think it would be appropriate.

I think Panzerni should keep their mail.
Dragoons will remain with uniforms, no buff coats.

I planned a black hussar armor set long ago for the player. Maybe one day I make it.

I don't know that kanban thing but we may try it.

 

[Prince de Radzivil]

I think Panzerni should keep their mail.

I really doubt they had many cuirasses across their ranks. Chain armour is way better for them.

Dragoons will remain with uniforms, no buff coats.

They had it sometimes, especially officers. But generally in the PLC (and generally all across Europe) until the late 17th century dragoons were quite poor quality troops (but still proved to be very effective with time).

I planned a black hussar armor set long ago for the player. Maybe one day I make it.

Hope the karacena would be first. 

 

[Vercynogetorix]

I think Panzerni should keep their mail.

I really doubt they had many cuirasses across their ranks. Chain armour is way better for them.

'old' would be cuirass; it was fairly widespread but as time progressed mail proved better; (they didnt need that much protection and mail was easier to come by)

Dragoons will remain with uniforms, no buff coats.

They had it sometimes, especially officers. But generally in the PLC (and generally all across Europe) until the late 17th century dragoons were quite poor quality troops (but still proved to be very effective with time).

PL Dragoons used also cuirass and Colette and cloth; generally later dragoons were as you say; this is a bit of cessure date. Colette was more common around 1630's going down in 1660's - fyi difference between colette and buffcoat is that buffcoat was worn under armour or as light armour. Colette was cavalry coat; in that term what cuirassiers wear under breastplace cuirass is buffcoat. What dragoons wear is colette.

I planned a black hussar armor set long ago for the player. Maybe one day I make it.

Hope the karacena would be first. 

I guess blackening husar armour is easier than making one from scratch for karacena...... so i would bet black armour first

 

[itruvor]

Sienkiewicz lived under Russian rule thus avoiding censorship he skipped the Russian attack in his work.

Really???

 

[Csatádi]

Sienkiewicz lived under Russian rule thus avoiding censorship he skipped the Russian attack in his work.

Really???

I don't think it'd be funny he risked his life.

I just checked the wiki, in the Hungarian translation the positive traits of the Polish and other Catholic people was skipped and also the negative traits and deeds of the Ukrainians. No surprize this translation was made during the Soviet opression.

 

[Vercynogetorix]

Sienkiewicz lived under Russian rule thus avoiding censorship he skipped the Russian attack in his work.

Really???

I don't think it'd be funny he risked his life.

I just checked the wiki, in the Hungarian translation the positive traits of the Polish and other Catholic people was skipped and also the negative traits and deeds of the Ukrainians. No surprize this translation was made during the Soviet opression.

Yes he did skipped entirety of russian assault on smolensk and he was quite clear in his letters that the reason was that censorship would forbid publication and repress him personally or his entire family

 

[itruvor]

Sienkiewicz lived under Russian rule thus avoiding censorship he skipped the Russian attack in his work.

Really???

I don't think it'd be funny he risked his life.

Really???
And there is evidence of threats to his life ??
In fact, he was a subject of the Russian Empire.
And all the laws of the empire extend not only to him, but also to all residents of Russia. And he did not stand out from them!

I would be grateful if you could indicate the source where the positive traits of the Polish and other Catholic people were skipped and also the negative traits and deeds of the Ukrainians.

You made your mod on the book ????
Or did you read historical works besides Sienkiewicz?

And about the "Soviet opression" ...
If you are an expert on the "Soviet opression", you should be aware of what was being censored, and what tasks were put before the censors.
That's why I was surprised, your comment about traits.
Maybe this is not a question of censorship, but of a specific censor?
Or do you think that you live now without censorship?

 

[itruvor]

Sienkiewicz lived under Russian rule thus avoiding censorship he skipped the Russian attack in his work.

Really???

I don't think it'd be funny he risked his life.

I just checked the wiki, in the Hungarian translation the positive traits of the Polish and other Catholic people was skipped and also the negative traits and deeds of the Ukrainians. No surprize this translation was made during the Soviet opression.

Yes he did skipped entirety of russian assault on smolensk and he was quite clear in his letters that the reason was that censorship would forbid publication and repress him personally or his entire family

That's it.
The matter was in the ordinary tsarist censorship. That there was no growth of nationalism in the new territories of the Russian Empire. And this was commonplace throughout the Russian Empire.
Actually, the territory of Poland, like Finland, had a certain status in the Russian Empire.

 

[Csatádi]

Really???
And there is evidence of threats to his life ??
In fact, he was a subject of the Russian Empire.
And all the laws of the empire extend not only to him, but also to all residents of Russia. And he did not stand out from them!

I think you got some hints and if you are interested in the censoship of Russia or the Soviet union, you may study them yourself.

I would be grateful if you could indicate the source where the positive traits of the Polish and other Catholic people were skipped and also the negative traits and deeds of the Ukrainians.

I mentioned wiki. If you need actual sources I suggest to take contacts through your scientific institute. Forums generally aren't the best opportunity for research.

You made your mod on the book ????
Or did you read historical works besides Sienkiewicz?

Come on...

And about the "Soviet opression" ...
If you are an expert on the "Soviet opression", you should be aware of what was being censored, and what tasks were put before the censors.
That's why I was surprised, your comment about traits.
Maybe this is not a question of censorship, but of a specific censor?
Or do you think that you live now without censorship?

Here you are a study about the soviet censorship. I hope it helps. http://real.mtak.hu/34850/7/cenzura_mukodesi_mechanizmusa.pdf

 

[Prince de Radzivil]

That's it.
The matter was in the ordinary tsarist censorship. That there was no growth of nationalism in the new territories of the Russian Empire. And this was commonplace throughout the Russian Empire.
Actually, the territory of Poland, like Finland, had a certain status in the Russian Empire.

It is not. During Sienkiewicz' time Poland was striped all of its former status, constitution, autonomy, self-government, currency, separate army etc etc - basically everything during the first decade after the January Uprising. There was no even such thing officially as "Poland" any more but "Privislinsky kray". In the Russian part of Poland after 1860s it was extremely problematic to get proper education in Polish language.

And the hardcore Russian nationalism and unitarism was actually on the rise since the reign of Alexander III. Just read what happened to Finland under the governorship of Nikolay Bobrikov in late 1890s-early 1900s. All this produced tons of problems in almost every corner of the empire and contributed a lot to its fast collapse and fragmentation immediately after the February Revolution.

 

[Metaldwarf]

Really enjoying this mod and currently involved in The Deluge plot. In order to fit the historical period/world of "The Trilogy" better I tried tweakmb to increase party sizes of AI lords but it says that it the Tweak is not supported in current profile. Does that mean it simply won't work for this mod?

 

[Csatádi]

WFAS txt files have sometimes different syntax, ask the creator of the tool to make it compatible with this game.

 

[Metaldwarf]

WFAS txt files have sometimes different syntax, ask the creator of the tool to make it compatible with this game.

I'm not that bothered, still enjoying the mod without huge armies. Thanks again, and the fact that you still work on it after all this time to make it more accurate is impressive. Na zdrowie!

 

[Plasquar]

I'm not that bothered, still enjoying the mod without huge armies.

I'm not overly familiar with WFaS. What is the standard army size of a normal lord?

 

[Csatádi]

I'm not overly familiar with WFaS. What is the standard army size of a normal lord?

Lords' army size depends on their level and renown. It is the same (or almost the same) like in Warband. I'm not sure if their Charisma and Leadership does matter.