Even battles are not ready for release

Users who are viewing this thread

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
🤷‍♂️

my guess is that the original M&B was meant to be an fantasy RPG of sorts, and as such the lore and world were created from scratch, though Armageddon dropped that idea mid-development and went for what we see in WB basically.

BL being a "prequel" he seemed to intend to bring "continuity" into the series (observable through the first BL map that we never played at), issue being that they've basically destroyed both pre-established lore and even geography in the process (which made the entire setting make absolutely zero sense).
I can dig both NP, yet I do feel that this half-baked world space, settlement positioning and lore should either be changed entirely since they've basically destroyed all continuity, or it should've stuck to the original even if with massive scaling and additional bodies of water. As is, ti's simply bad imo...
Idk if it's hilarious or just sad that Taleworlds can't even stick to their own lore. Ffs most gaming companies that have series of games in the same setting either have a lore master or a lore document or both, but not Taleworlds they just say **** it let's go. :ROFLMAO:
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Thomas F. Madden, Crusades: The Illustrated History doesn't actually discuss the Crusader's army composition at Hattin:
USCbVNq.png

That's it. The entire battle is covered in two pages of the book and the word "turcopole" doesn't appear anywhere in that short chapter. Or, indeed, anywhere else in the book at all. Regardless of that, somehow "numerous light cavalry," a non-specific claim in both number and origin, becomes the very specific "500 Turcopoles" on Wikipedia.
Okay so you've attacked one source nicely but haven't actually answered my question, what percentages are we talking about? My (non-Wikipedia) source you didn't respond to says many Turcopoles were Christian, as opposed to your original statement of the opposite.

What percentage of Crusader armies were Turcopoles - bearing in mind that "light cavalry" and "Turcopole" are not synonyms - and then out of the Turcopole element, how many were native Muslims and not native Christians or even Europeans?
On a more humorous note, on the very same page of Madden's book there is this sidebar:
qAAGgpE.png

Definitely were some multicultural medieval armies.
I have already agreed some degree of native Muslim element occurred in Crusader armies, just not to a large extent, and I was not addressing all mediaeval armies - I was addressing Turcopoles in Crusader armies specifically. Additionally, that source apparently pertains to mercenaries, not members of a standing army.

My position is that there should be some degree of troop culture mixing in armies, so long as the game is heavily biased for native troops, but I don't know enough about the current formula one way or another to have an opinion on the game's current state there (from what I've seen most parties are largely monocultural, though minor factions have a serious issue with not recruiting their own troops). I only jumped into this argument because you were talking about Turcopoles/making erroneous statements about the in-game setting.
They are blended in gameplay mechanics though? Every faction operates the exact. same. way.
Wrong - they have different starting policies. They also have different economic output focuses in villages, they have different culture bonuses/maluses eg Battanian forest speed or Aserai trade bonus, as already made clear there is a hefty cultural penalty for installing the wrong culture governor, and:
Troops have no issue burning down anyone else's ****, even their "native" culture.
On that topic, don't lords display reluctance to burn down fiefs of the same culture?
I played a game (an actual RPG) as far back as the nineties where language was treated more or less realistically, Twilight 2000. If you didn't have someone in your party who spoke the local language, you were **** outta luck.
And there you go, that's why it isn't in the game.
None of this is reflected in the conversations you have with the various clan leaders. In the case of the Khuzaits, Tulag of the Arkits says his clan is loyal to the Urkhunait dynasty. Mesui says she likes a strong khan because they keeps the clans in line.
It doesn't need to be indirectly reflected in the conversations, because it's explicitly stated in the encyclopaedia that the clans are held together by threat of force, not some kind of legal arrangement like the Northern Empire relies on, or a popular agreement like in Aserai. What you just said about Mesui actually backs that up.
This is the same game where it simultaneously jumps through hoops to say that slavery is defintely, most assuredly illegal in most of Calradia but then not only gives you a companion with a slave background (She-wolf) but also a repeatable mission where you're enslaving people.
It's inconsistent in that unrelated thing for sure, but you are looking at minor inconsistencies on unrelated things to justify a totally wrong statement that the game as a whole doesn't have very different cultures. It does and both multiple game mechanics and the setting support this. Sure not every game mechanic reflects it but that doesn't matter. We can keep arguing over the minor quibbles for ten more posts, but that won't change.
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Okay so you've attacked one source nicely but haven't actually answered my question, what percentages are we talking about? My (non-Wikipedia) source you didn't respond to says many Turcopoles were Christian, as opposed to your original statement of the opposite.
Your source doesn't put a number or even estimate on it; it just says "many" and leaves it there.
What percentage of Crusader armies were Turcopoles - bearing in mind that "light cavalry" and "Turcopole" are not synonyms - and then out of the Turcopole element, how many were native Muslims and not native Christians or even Europeans?
Depends. No source goes into that much detail for the Battle of Hattin and some sources do treat the term "light cavalry" and "Turcopole" as synonyms. But other sources use the term inclusively with native troops, regardless of if they were mounted.

At any rate, I used that example because the idea that the crusader armies were multicultural (Franks openly did not consider locals to be the same culturally even when they were literally European Christians) is pretty well-attested to not be true.
Wrong - they have different starting policies. They also have different economic output focuses in villages, they have different culture bonuses/maluses eg Battanian forest speed or Aserai trade bonus, as already made clear there is a hefty cultural penalty for installing the wrong culture governor, and:
Factions don't have bonuses, cultures do. If an Aserai-culture lord joins the Battanians, they don't move faster in a forest. Village production is basically fixed and arbitrary (growing grapes in a frost zone, really?), changing factions doesn't change them at all. There are a few perks that do. Fair point on policies though.

But the operative phrase was "operate differently." As in, how do you pick who gets a fief? The same voting mechanic. How do you form an army? The exact same method. How do you choose who will be the next king, generate influence, build support from notables, manage your fiefs, divide the spoils after conquering a city, kick out another clan? Is any of that different between the Khuzaits and Vlandians? No. They all operate the exact same. There isn't even an Imperial re-unification mechanic or similar, which should be a gimme for making the distinction between Imperial and non-Imperial factions.

That's why I wouldn't use game mechanics to buck up lore.
 
Last edited:
What percentage of Crusader armies were Turcopoles - bearing in mind that "light cavalry" and "Turcopole" are not synonyms - and then out of the Turcopole element, how many were native Muslims and not native Christians or even Europeans?

In the periods between the main named crusades, for example during hattin, crusader infantry was drawn from local christians who were a mixture of partially-nativised European and Levantine (Poulain and Maronite respectively). Both muslim and Christian writers (for example usama ibn munqidh and william of tyre) say that the Franks basically melted into the local population, and the archaeological record shows this too (catholic churches, maronite churches and mosques within the same villages). However, visitors from Europe were usually just pilgrims who would stay for a few months and then go home, so they didn't contribute to the armies very much. Crusader armies weren't just transplanted Frankish armies, they were a mixture. By the late 1100s, a crusader infantryman would have been virtually indistinguishable from an Ayyubid one, leading to shenanigans like at the battle of acre where an ayyubid ship almost passed by a crusader blockade without anyone noticing.

Similarly the fatimid military employed relatively few actual egyptians. The bulk of their infantry was from Sudan, even up until the 3rd crusade, where a writer called Ambrose is horrified by seeing black people for the first time. All of their cavalry was from berber, arab and Turkic auxiliaries who were practically forbidden from mixing with locals and kept at arms length in dedicated garrison cities.

crusades-fatimids-granger.jpg


Needless to say, I think the bannerlord system of monocultural armies at the start of the game is absurd. Vlandia and Battania are right next to each other but they have absolutely nothing in common until you start the game. The idea of "military culture" perfectly matching the state boundaries is just ridiculous. I actually think the mercenary clans feature is a good idea, but they should have actual settlements that they're attached to rather than just being glorified bandits. It would lead to much more variety if the "military cultures" were actually fairly small, specialised areas, and everywhere else you just got fairly standard factional infantry that didn't upgrade that far. A lord with good access to these areas would have a terrifying army, while one who didn't would have armies similar to what they are now.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Your source doesn't put a number or even estimate on it; it just says "many" and leaves it there.

Depends. No source goes into that much detail for the Battle of Hattin and some sources do treat the term "light cavalry" and "Turcopole" as synonyms. But other sources use the term inclusively with native troops, regardless of if they were mounted.
I think with that level of ambiguity, you lack basis to say that Turcopoles who were *specifically* both native *and Islamic* were anything but a quite small part of Crusader armies. (Again, not saying it didn't happen to some degree.)
At any rate, I used that example because the idea that the crusader armies were multicultural (Franks openly did not consider locals to be the same culturally even when they were literally European Christians) is pretty well-attested to not be true.
I'm confused because this sentence seems contrary to what you've been arguing. Is "were" a typo? Not to nitpick, I'm just wondering if we are even disagreeing at this point.
Factions don't have bonuses, cultures do.
Was your original statement, which I am disagreeing with, not:
"As far as Bannerlord goes, these guys share a similar culture"
?
Because the point is that they are one of many differences the Bannerlord cultures have.
Fair point on policies though.
Thank you.
But the operative phrase was "operate differently." As in, how do you pick who gets a fief? The same voting mechanic. How do you form an army? The exact same method. How do you choose who will be the next king, generate influence, build support from notables, manage your fiefs, divide the spoils after conquering a city, kick out another clan? Is any of that different between the Khuzaits and Vlandians? No. They all operate the exact same.
As I already said, the game not reflecting culture differences in every mechanical aspect does not invalidate the existence of the multiple game mechanics that do show strong cultural differences.
There isn't even an Imperial re-unification mechanic or similar, which should be a gimme for making the distinction between Imperial and non-Imperial factions.
The main quest. You are actually explicitly told you re-unify the Empire and they all capitulate to you at once when you gain a certain amount of Empire territory, for example. The game differentiates between Imperial and non-Imperial factions based on which questline you choose, and it determines which group of ~3 factions you have to fight all at once.

Taking game mechanics and the setting into account, Bannerlord's cultures are not similar enough to say that there would not be cultural friction between people of different cultures in the setting.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
However, visitors from Europe were usually just pilgrims who would stay for a few months and then go home, so they didn't contribute to the armies very much. Crusader armies weren't just transplanted Frankish armies, they were a mixture.
Who do you think comprised the majority of Crusader armies?
To clarify, I'm saying that Crusader armies were largely of European origin or at the very least, native Christian, with Muslim soldiers existing but being in a distinct minority. And that Crusader armies were a mix of mercenaries, vassals, visitors, and Templars/Hospitallers.

Visitors from Europe were mostly pilgrims and mostly went home, sure. But that doesn't preclude the Crusader army still having many visitors from Europe in its ranks. For example, if you had a hundred thousand visitors from Europe and 10% of them stayed on, that would be enough to make up 50% of a Crusader army of twenty thousand. (I'm not saying these are the actual numbers, just illustrating the point).
 
Last edited:
Who do you think comprised the majority of Crusader armies?

People who had lived in the area long enough to be incorporated into the levy system and provide their own equipment. By the third crusade probably up to half of them were of European origin, but had been born in the holy land. The Kingdom of Jerusalem issued military levies with equipment requirements just like in Europe, but this excluded anyone who didn't have enough land or money to provide them with arms. So the bulk of their infantry were effectively just natives.

Also Islam is a religion, not a culture or nationality. Especially in the Mediterranean, Christians and Muslims would not be easy to distinguish just by the way they dressed or how they look. Hell even today you cant tell the difference in somewhere like lebanon. If there were muslims in the levies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (and there almost certainly were), they would have been practically invisible.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
People who had lived in the area long enough to be incorporated into the levy system and provide their own equipment. By the third crusade probably up to half of them were of European origin, but had been born in the holy land. The Kingdom of Jerusalem issued military levies with equipment requirements just like in Europe, but this excluded anyone who didn't have enough land or money to provide them with arms. So the bulk of their infantry were effectively just natives.

Also Islam is a religion, not a culture or nationality. Especially in the Mediterranean, Christians and Muslims would not be easy to distinguish just by the way they dressed or how they look. Hell even today you cant tell the difference in somewhere like lebanon. If there were muslims in the levies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (and there almost certainly were), they would have been practically invisible.
most western ppl tend to see muslims as "same culture blend", which's not only extremely stupid, it's also very xenophobic.
Berbers (also muslims) hated the Arabs (which was another wrong term for a culture, but includes the blends from arabia as a grping term) and were exceptionally different from them. Arabs were divided into many different cultures, like the Bedouins, Levantine, some variations of "turks", persians, so on so forth. Just as Egyptians were divided into multi-cultures. All they had in common really was that they were beaten into submission at some point through war by some warmongering caliph who forced his own view of islam upon them. Obviously that didn't hold forever and there were divides among slam with multiple schisms... Than another caliph would unify enough landmass to afford invading tons of other lands forcing his own view again, and the cycle repeated a lot throughout history... And it's not like catholics didn't know to distinguish them, Umayyads conquered almost the entirety of Aquitane at some pt, and were in constant contact with the iberians, who had a massive population of devout catholics - that means any scholar (mostly clergy) were very well familiarized with islamic faith and the multicultural blend under their faith.

The thing that makes it a tad more confusing now-a-days is the fact that some ottoman aholes forced language and faith views upon their empire's islamic people overtime, hence one of the strongest arguments over the "blending" which's that most of these ppl speak arabic or a slight variation to this day...
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
People who had lived in the area long enough to be incorporated into the levy system and provide their own equipment. By the third crusade probably up to half of them were of European origin
So to clarify what you mean by origin (descent or directly coming from), are you saying half of Crusader armies in the 3rd Crusade were not descended from Europeans and implying that only half of Crusader armies was of European descent? Or are you saying half of Crusader armies were descended from, say, third-generation Europeans?

If it's the former that's going to need a pretty big citation
Also Islam is a religion, not a culture or nationality
Here I was thinking all Islamic people came from Islamistanirania. I didn't say it was, but surely you can agree that an entire movement which at least nominally had been organised by Christians to come to Jerusalem and retake it from Muslims would value religion as an extremely important criteria to most Crusaders and easy grounds for discrimination when recruiting and/or friction among troops, which is what I think is under discussion.
If there were muslims in the levies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (and there almost certainly were), they would have been practically invisible.
Very modern thinking, but in practice, men in armies travel together. If your comrade/subordinate is a practicing Muslim, you'll know, because he won't be joining you for Mass or Vespers or w/e, he won't be joining you for the roast pork, and he'll be praying eight times a day, most likely in Arabic, and if you also understand Arabic then you'll likely know what he's saying.

If you are a mercenary you may not care, but if you're a Crusader who travelled to the other side of your known world to fight off Muslims and sold all your possessions to do so, you're unlikely to have any religious tolerance. And if you're a Muslim man you are also probably unlikely to want to join up with the guys dedicated to removing you.

We are not in disagreement that there were some Muslim troops in Crusader armies, the only question is to what degree and my stance is that it would have been a small amount.
 
Very modern thinking, but in practice, men in armies travel together. If your comrade/subordinate is a practicing Muslim, you'll know, because he won't be joining you for Mass or Vespers or w/e, he won't be joining you for the roast pork, and he'll be praying eight times a day, most likely in Arabic, and if you also understand Arabic then you'll likely know what he's saying.

If you are a mercenary you may not care, but if you're a Crusader who travelled to the other side of your known world to fight off Muslims and sold all your possessions to do so, you're unlikely to have any religious tolerance. And if you're a Muslim man you are also probably unlikely to want to join up with the guys dedicated to removing you.

We are not in disagreement that there were some Muslim troops in Crusader armies, the only question is to what degree and my stance is that it would have been a small amount.
Have you seen any Maronite Catholics? Or maybe Coptic Orthodox guys? They're not easily distinguishable from Muslim Arabs at a glance.

A crusader force would all too likely be full of guys that you would consider 'brown', but catholic. Its simply ridiculous to expect them to not consider bolstering their numbers with locals who happened to be in the area.

Muslims do believe in the practice of taqiyyah- concealing their own beliefs so as to avoid persecution. So a muslim man could well end up serving with Crusader forces without anyone having a clue of it. They're not just going to out there facing mecca and praying to it in front of zealous Crusaders lol.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Have you seen any Maronite Catholics? Or maybe Coptic Orthodox guys? They're not easily distinguishable from Muslim Arabs at a glance.

A crusader force would all too likely be full of guys that you would consider 'brown', but catholic. Its simply ridiculous to expect them to not consider bolstering their numbers with locals who happened to be in the area.
Don't disagree with that, see my earlier post/s. I was not talking about skin tone at all.
Muslims do believe in the practice of taqiyyah- concealing their own beliefs so as to avoid persecution. So a muslim man could well end up serving with Crusader forces without anyone having a clue of it. They're not just going to out there facing mecca and praying to it in front of zealous Crusaders lol.
I had forgotten about this loophole, not a bad point. However, the idea behind taqiyyah is protecting yourself from persecution, not doing it to join up with a military who is literally fighting against Islam. So again, it would not be in most Muslims' interest to join the Crusaders if they were passionate believers in their faith. That would be a bit of a self-own.
 
Don't disagree with that, see my earlier post/s. I was not talking about skin tone at all.

I had forgotten about this loophole, not a bad point. However, the idea behind taqiyyah is protecting yourself from persecution, not doing it to join up with a military who is literally fighting against Islam. So again, it would not be in most Muslims' interest to join the Crusaders if they were passionate believers in their faith. That would be a bit of a self-own.
Well muslims have muslims before, just going by Saladin's stuff before the crusades. And again, if a lord tells you gotta fight there's not much to do about it.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Well muslims have fought muslims before, just going by Saladin's stuff before the crusades.
Fought Muslims for the benefit of other Muslims, but not fought Muslims with the intention of removing all Islam (edit: from the region). Bit of a difference there.
And again, if a lord tells you gotta fight there's not much to do about it.
Potentially true but depends on whether the lord would even recruit someone as a fighter he saw as potentially unreliable in the first place. And we still haven't established to what degree any of this happened.

I am finding it hard to believe that I really have to argue that Muslims were a distinct minority in Crusader armies.
 
Here I was thinking all Islamic people came from Islamistanirania. I didn't say it was, but surely you can agree that an entire movement which at least nominally had been organised by Christians to come to Jerusalem and retake it from Muslims would value religion as an extremely important criteria to most Crusaders and easy grounds for discrimination when recruiting and/or friction among troops, which is what I think is under discussion.

The crusades were about Jerusalem, not Islam. The crusaders allied with Muslims (sometimes against other Christians) almost immediately, and even protected muslim communities with tax breaks and legal autonomy (ibn jubayr). By the mid 1100s the crusader states were mostly concerned with maintaining their (fairly rich) holdings rather than fighting islam in the abstract. The templars guarded the dome of the rock and allowed muslims to pray there, and the kingdom of jerusalem had muslim tributary states like Damascus. The modern idea of levantine crusaders as genocidal zealots who wanted to eradicate Islam is just a modern fantasy. The only thing they cared about was Jerusalem.

In most strategy games there is some mechanic that gives you a penalty for ruling over people of a different culture or religion, usually because developers dont know what else to do with the religion mechanic other than a public order penalty. This has given people the impression that this was true in real life as well. But considering the crusaders never faced any muslim unrest, and muslims ruled over majority christian populations for centuries with no serious issues, I think that idea has to be retired.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
The crusades were about Jerusalem, not Islam.
Like I just said, "an entire movement which at least nominally had been organised by Christians to come to Jerusalem and retake it from Muslims." So yes, I'm aware the Crusades were about Jerusalem.
The crusaders allied with Muslims (sometimes against other Christians)
Which specific instances are we referring to? During the siege of Ascalon, the Muslim peasants refused to supply the Crusaders with food. Jalal Hasan agreed to help the Crusaders but this was also alongside a promise that he would convert to Christianity.
and even protected muslim communities with tax breaks and legal autonomy (ibn jubayr). By the mid 1100s the crusader states were mostly concerned with maintaining their (fairly rich) holdings rather than fighting islam in the abstract
Allowing Muslims to live as a source of taxation is different to recruiting armies directly from the Muslim population.
Muslims did not legally owe military service to the Crusaders. The predominant view by modern historians is that the Crusaders inhabited already largely Christian areas and separated themselves from the Muslims. The main reason they had legal autonomy was because the Crusaders were spread too thin to govern anyway. They had a different tax system because the Crusaders, again, were spread too thin to do something like rework the entire existing taxation system from scratch, or put down rebellions.
The templars guarded the dome of the rock and allowed muslims to pray there, and the kingdom of jerusalem had muslim tributary states like Damascus. The modern idea of levantine crusaders as genocidal zealots who wanted to eradicate Islam is just a modern fantasy. The only thing they cared about was Jerusalem.
After the first Siege of Jerusalem, Jews and Muslims were specifically targeted and massacred in huge numbers. Those few survivors who remained were forced to leave Jerusalem.

The Al-Asqa mosque was turned into a palace/stable for horses. The Dome of the Rock was turned into a Christian church.

For the next ~100 years during the existence of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslims were not permitted to live in the city of Jerusalem. As a result, the city was greatly underpopulated! The city was repopulated by settlement of Eastern Christians and more European settlers.

By the way I may not have made this clear enough but I'm not saying Crusaders had the goal of wiping out Islam entirely. They did want to wipe it out from Jerusalem though, and they did. And I strongly doubt that many Islamic troops helped them in that endeavour.
 
By the way I may not have made this clear enough but I'm not saying Crusaders had the goal of wiping out Islam entirely. They did want to wipe it out from Jerusalem though, and they did. And I strongly doubt that many Islamic troops helped them in that endeavour.

I think at this point we've just lost sight of the original argument. I personally don't think there were large numbers of muslims in the crusader armies. Apocal initially said that multicultural armies were common in the middle ages, using turcopoles as an example, and you disagreed, saying that turcopoles weren't muslim. But that doesn't mean they were culturally same as the other crusaders, or that they were culturally different from other turks. It's not even up for debate that the crusader armies were a plurality of people and cultures, reflecting the kingdoms themselves. I'm not sure what your sticking point is with this argument, there is evidence for it in almost every crusader source.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
I think at this point we've just lost sight of the original argument
Yes, I'd be happy to end it here.
I personally don't think there were large numbers of muslims in the crusader armies.
Correct. I doubt that even 10% of the average Crusader army was made up of Muslims. Maybe 5%.
Apocal initially said that multicultural armies were common in the middle ages, using turcopoles as an example, and you disagreed, saying that turcopoles weren't muslim. But that doesn't mean they were culturally same as the other crusaders, or that they were culturally different from other turks.
My source said that many Turcopoles were not Muslim, as "Turcopole" was not actually synonymous with "Muslim", "Turk" or even "Middle Eastern". Of course, I also agreed that there were Turcopole Muslims - it just makes sense.
It's not even up for debate that the crusader armies were a plurality of people and cultures, reflecting the kingdoms themselves. I'm not sure what your sticking point is with this argument, there is evidence for it in almost every crusader source.
I did not say the Crusader armies weren't a mixture of people and cultures. However, they were for the most part similar cultures, who were all tied together by the especially important trait of their Christianity.
 
But Christians (and Muslims) are not culturally similar, even within denominations. The Syrian / Maronite Christians who made up the majority of the crusader states had been separated from Western Europe for longer than Islam had existed. They were completely different culturally, insofar as culture is social norms and material cutlure. I don't get how that's controversial.

What did the Kara Khitai nomads (who by and large practiced christianity) who founded a Chinese dynasty in Central Asia have in common with the Franks?
 

randomuser

Recruit
Yes the game is not ready to be released.

There are still several battle issues.
1. Inertia should not be ignored . A cavalry charging in full speed can be stopped instantly by 1 hit without causing much damage to both side.
2. Collision is broken. My attacks always got blocked by allies but I can get hit by enemies at the same time. Also, a soldier with a small shield should not be able to block attacks from a large area for his allies.
3. The charge command does not make any sense. Pretty much it's telling soldiers to quit formations and fight on their own.
 
Top Bottom