Humble suggestion from a professor of military history down in Florida. This is a rather long entry so I'll break it down right now for those not seeking more work during their online school time.
Siege:
-Elevate all castles so that the approach is at an incline. Castles were set up in strategic locations, not in the middle of a field, if it could be helped.
-As such, holding a castle could be done by a few dozen men and the enemy would suffer huge casualties. Siege towers should not be allowed during Sieges. (make it an option, so people have the freedom to choose)
-Battering rams should take considerably longer to get to their targets, and may I add; depending on the engineering skill they should be far better armored.
Bows:
-Increase, double their damage output.
-Stamina, historically it wasn't a matter of ammunition (although certainly lords would attempt to save money) but it is physically impossible to let loose 100 arrows during a battle. Your arm wouldn't allow it.
-Foot Archers price to upgrade (not in maintenance) should be horribly expensive. It took years for a someone to develop the strength, not the skill, necessary for using warbows.
Crossbows:
-Crossbow output increased to match war bows, but decrease their firing rate to roughly 2 bolts per 10 arrows shot.
-No limitation in how many shot besides quiver count.
Any of the suggestions above, in regards to ranged weaponry, apply to bows used on horseback. These are categorized as short bows and were falling out of style, if they hadn't already during this time period. Shortbows and compound bows are only effective against chain and leather, or a combination thereof. In the medieval period, anything with a cheap padded gambeson left short bows obsolete.
Horse Barding and overall armor:
-Unarmored horses should be highly vulnerable to missile fire, on the other hand barding should negate most missile fire. (depending on where the barding doesn't cover) Same to apply to the top tier cavalry units. For Balancing purposes, I'd suggest only the top 2 tiers of cavalry to be near immune to missile fire (not the heavier crossbows)
The information below is the longer version that outlines the suggestions above. Thank you for a great game and I hope to see continued effort in patching it.
To the developers and modders, the following are suggestions that would (hopefully) meld together realism and enjoyable mechanical roleplay. These suggestions are based on pieces of historical data that anyone can find evidence for. So without further delay, I promise to keep it short.
Sieges:
First and foremost, warfare during the medieval period, the early and the middle of these times, was extremely small in scale; at least in comparison to classical times.
1-Increase, substantially, the incline of the ground when in castle sieges. Castles were meant to be able to be held by far fewer men successfully. The terrain it was selected to be built on, heavily favored the defenders. This made approaching it on foot an extremely difficult task, let alone attempting to bring a siege tower to it.
2-Eliminate siege towers from castle sieges. Castles were often manned by a few dozen men in order to uphold the principal of economy of force. Only during dangerous times was it fully manned. Bringing a ram to its gates was an extreme under taking.
3-Ram speed substantially decrease in castle sieges (the incline of the terrain should simulate this).
These are simply suggestions, that despite many others that could be made, elevate castles to the military obstacles they truly were.
Missile troops:
Bowmen vs Archers. Historically quivers were delivered in batches, these batches would tend to vary from 20-30 in a quiver. Does this mean that you can't pack more arrows per quiver? No, of course not. But the issue with bows, which most games utterly miss, and is annoying point to me is: can bows can be used forever without drawbacks? bow require "dexterity" or "finesse" rather than sheer brute strength and force of will. Crossbows have the drawback of a slow reload (and I do not exaggerate, they are slow to reload) , which comparably it roughly translates to 2-3 bolts for 10+ arrows shot. This is for crossbows with comparable strength to warbows.
Ammo wasn't necessarily the limiting factor for bowmen, it was the energy. A bow requires more brute force than fighting with a sword does. Sword fighting is more closely related to skill, dexterity and control than brute strength. You can parry and swing in different angles, at different times from different stances and accomplish different results. Bows, but more importantly warbows require brute strength. A bowman would typically fire a couple dozen arrows at most. Partly due to time constraints, but mainly because it takes a huge effort to actually use one.
Suggestion:
Overall Shields should negate missile fire. Firing 15 arrows to a shield doesn't do much to its integrity, believe me I've done it.
Segmented, or Plate armor basically renders bows useless to the chest and head regions. Now during the time the game is set, bows were still highly effect if they hit any of the limbs, since the arrows and bolts could penetrate those.
-Can stamina be introduced, or better yet, re-introduced as it was in Viking Conquest.
i.e: I can give you a full 5-6 feet warbow, that is the only one decently capable of penetrating scale, (against chest plate it does little mind you), and you would be unable to shoot that more than 30-40 times. Even if I brought quiver after quiver, your arm would just not allow it. Now, after years of practice (veteran troops), an increase to this limitation is perfect.
-WarBows used by infantry to have their damage increased substantially (this would be compensated by their limited use). Consequently, increase the price of foot archers rank 3+ to multiple times that of a crossbowman.
During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon. Not because they were the medieval equivalent of a light machine gun, they were more akin to an artillery piece. Not difficult to load, although if trained not slow, but takes a huge toll on whomever is using it. I do not wish to understate how difficult it was to field large forces of bowmen that were efficient at killing something bigger than a fox. Unlike a skill, which through repetition and instinct can be learned and improved upon in weeks or months, drawing a bow requires brute force. This process takes years, not weeks, to accomplish. (I am not suggesting making bowmen takes years to train, a simply large hike to troop cost would suffice, but not mainteance)
-Crossbows: Increase their killing power substantially, and lowering the reloading speed.
Not cheap to manufacture, but extremely fast to field. Knights and nobles found it 'unfair' that a peasant could have so much killing power without much training. But that is what technology does, it diminishes the training skill floor of a weapon while retaining lethal power or increasing it.
Not much needs to be covered here, as most individuals who play know the essentials behind a crossbow (slow to shoot, same power as a warbow, if not more).
-Horse armor/armor/shields
To balance the aforementioned, unarmored horses would be rendered useless in a direct charge against bowmen, but those with metallic bardings would be heavily resistant to it. Same should apply to infantry and shields. There are plenty of historical pieces where bowman exhausted their entire supply and were left utterly spent of energy, and the enemy simply lowered their shields and attacked.
This however should not be misunderstood with arm and leg armor. Body armor during the period this game is set was getting highly efficient but extremely costly. Armor to the limbs was still not as good and a warbow hitting your limb of "plate" would penetrate and cause horrible injuries.
Fun Fact: arrow injuries weren't "pulled", the cleanest way to fix an injury was first to push the arrow through.
These are the suggestions in regard to logistics and ranged weaponry that I have. Mods have tackled others, for example the mods that make cavalry charges far more deadly. If you've never ridden a horse before, I can help you imagine:
Picture how it would feel having an average sized car 3,000 lbs ram you. Cut the weight in half and you have an average sized warhorse, without counting the weight of the rider, both of the armors and whatever weaponry which multiples the kinetic force of the impact to a single point...you get the idea.
Thank you for the patches, thank you for a wonderful game. The sieges and the idea that logistics was so "good" to be able to field such tools so often just hits me the wrong way. Were they found in the medieval period? Yes! However, not as often as we think they did. Hence why it was so expensive to take fortified structures, which the aforementioned changes should increase gameplay balance that will add further difficulty to sieges, while giving us a historical, yet brutally fun aspect to the game.
What aspect you may ask? Think! Think very carefully before you commit to a siege. Destroying the enemy in detail (piecemeal) should be a far more preferable alternative than a siege. Sieges in the medieval period were not like in the classical period, where tens of thousands of men could build wonders of military engineering. Medieval warfare was far smaller in scale, but no less deadly.
Siege:
-Elevate all castles so that the approach is at an incline. Castles were set up in strategic locations, not in the middle of a field, if it could be helped.
-As such, holding a castle could be done by a few dozen men and the enemy would suffer huge casualties. Siege towers should not be allowed during Sieges. (make it an option, so people have the freedom to choose)
-Battering rams should take considerably longer to get to their targets, and may I add; depending on the engineering skill they should be far better armored.
Bows:
-Increase, double their damage output.
-Stamina, historically it wasn't a matter of ammunition (although certainly lords would attempt to save money) but it is physically impossible to let loose 100 arrows during a battle. Your arm wouldn't allow it.
-Foot Archers price to upgrade (not in maintenance) should be horribly expensive. It took years for a someone to develop the strength, not the skill, necessary for using warbows.
Crossbows:
-Crossbow output increased to match war bows, but decrease their firing rate to roughly 2 bolts per 10 arrows shot.
-No limitation in how many shot besides quiver count.
Any of the suggestions above, in regards to ranged weaponry, apply to bows used on horseback. These are categorized as short bows and were falling out of style, if they hadn't already during this time period. Shortbows and compound bows are only effective against chain and leather, or a combination thereof. In the medieval period, anything with a cheap padded gambeson left short bows obsolete.
Horse Barding and overall armor:
-Unarmored horses should be highly vulnerable to missile fire, on the other hand barding should negate most missile fire. (depending on where the barding doesn't cover) Same to apply to the top tier cavalry units. For Balancing purposes, I'd suggest only the top 2 tiers of cavalry to be near immune to missile fire (not the heavier crossbows)
The information below is the longer version that outlines the suggestions above. Thank you for a great game and I hope to see continued effort in patching it.
To the developers and modders, the following are suggestions that would (hopefully) meld together realism and enjoyable mechanical roleplay. These suggestions are based on pieces of historical data that anyone can find evidence for. So without further delay, I promise to keep it short.
Sieges:
First and foremost, warfare during the medieval period, the early and the middle of these times, was extremely small in scale; at least in comparison to classical times.
1-Increase, substantially, the incline of the ground when in castle sieges. Castles were meant to be able to be held by far fewer men successfully. The terrain it was selected to be built on, heavily favored the defenders. This made approaching it on foot an extremely difficult task, let alone attempting to bring a siege tower to it.
2-Eliminate siege towers from castle sieges. Castles were often manned by a few dozen men in order to uphold the principal of economy of force. Only during dangerous times was it fully manned. Bringing a ram to its gates was an extreme under taking.
3-Ram speed substantially decrease in castle sieges (the incline of the terrain should simulate this).
These are simply suggestions, that despite many others that could be made, elevate castles to the military obstacles they truly were.
Missile troops:
Bowmen vs Archers. Historically quivers were delivered in batches, these batches would tend to vary from 20-30 in a quiver. Does this mean that you can't pack more arrows per quiver? No, of course not. But the issue with bows, which most games utterly miss, and is annoying point to me is: can bows can be used forever without drawbacks? bow require "dexterity" or "finesse" rather than sheer brute strength and force of will. Crossbows have the drawback of a slow reload (and I do not exaggerate, they are slow to reload) , which comparably it roughly translates to 2-3 bolts for 10+ arrows shot. This is for crossbows with comparable strength to warbows.
Ammo wasn't necessarily the limiting factor for bowmen, it was the energy. A bow requires more brute force than fighting with a sword does. Sword fighting is more closely related to skill, dexterity and control than brute strength. You can parry and swing in different angles, at different times from different stances and accomplish different results. Bows, but more importantly warbows require brute strength. A bowman would typically fire a couple dozen arrows at most. Partly due to time constraints, but mainly because it takes a huge effort to actually use one.
Suggestion:
Overall Shields should negate missile fire. Firing 15 arrows to a shield doesn't do much to its integrity, believe me I've done it.
Segmented, or Plate armor basically renders bows useless to the chest and head regions. Now during the time the game is set, bows were still highly effect if they hit any of the limbs, since the arrows and bolts could penetrate those.
-Can stamina be introduced, or better yet, re-introduced as it was in Viking Conquest.
i.e: I can give you a full 5-6 feet warbow, that is the only one decently capable of penetrating scale, (against chest plate it does little mind you), and you would be unable to shoot that more than 30-40 times. Even if I brought quiver after quiver, your arm would just not allow it. Now, after years of practice (veteran troops), an increase to this limitation is perfect.
-WarBows used by infantry to have their damage increased substantially (this would be compensated by their limited use). Consequently, increase the price of foot archers rank 3+ to multiple times that of a crossbowman.
During the time this game aims to replicate, warbows were an extremely deadly weapon. Not because they were the medieval equivalent of a light machine gun, they were more akin to an artillery piece. Not difficult to load, although if trained not slow, but takes a huge toll on whomever is using it. I do not wish to understate how difficult it was to field large forces of bowmen that were efficient at killing something bigger than a fox. Unlike a skill, which through repetition and instinct can be learned and improved upon in weeks or months, drawing a bow requires brute force. This process takes years, not weeks, to accomplish. (I am not suggesting making bowmen takes years to train, a simply large hike to troop cost would suffice, but not mainteance)
-Crossbows: Increase their killing power substantially, and lowering the reloading speed.
Not cheap to manufacture, but extremely fast to field. Knights and nobles found it 'unfair' that a peasant could have so much killing power without much training. But that is what technology does, it diminishes the training skill floor of a weapon while retaining lethal power or increasing it.
Not much needs to be covered here, as most individuals who play know the essentials behind a crossbow (slow to shoot, same power as a warbow, if not more).
-Horse armor/armor/shields
To balance the aforementioned, unarmored horses would be rendered useless in a direct charge against bowmen, but those with metallic bardings would be heavily resistant to it. Same should apply to infantry and shields. There are plenty of historical pieces where bowman exhausted their entire supply and were left utterly spent of energy, and the enemy simply lowered their shields and attacked.
This however should not be misunderstood with arm and leg armor. Body armor during the period this game is set was getting highly efficient but extremely costly. Armor to the limbs was still not as good and a warbow hitting your limb of "plate" would penetrate and cause horrible injuries.
Fun Fact: arrow injuries weren't "pulled", the cleanest way to fix an injury was first to push the arrow through.
These are the suggestions in regard to logistics and ranged weaponry that I have. Mods have tackled others, for example the mods that make cavalry charges far more deadly. If you've never ridden a horse before, I can help you imagine:
Picture how it would feel having an average sized car 3,000 lbs ram you. Cut the weight in half and you have an average sized warhorse, without counting the weight of the rider, both of the armors and whatever weaponry which multiples the kinetic force of the impact to a single point...you get the idea.
Thank you for the patches, thank you for a wonderful game. The sieges and the idea that logistics was so "good" to be able to field such tools so often just hits me the wrong way. Were they found in the medieval period? Yes! However, not as often as we think they did. Hence why it was so expensive to take fortified structures, which the aforementioned changes should increase gameplay balance that will add further difficulty to sieges, while giving us a historical, yet brutally fun aspect to the game.
What aspect you may ask? Think! Think very carefully before you commit to a siege. Destroying the enemy in detail (piecemeal) should be a far more preferable alternative than a siege. Sieges in the medieval period were not like in the classical period, where tens of thousands of men could build wonders of military engineering. Medieval warfare was far smaller in scale, but no less deadly.
Last edited: