Young Nobles

[Mooncabbage]

These guys appear to suck badly to me. At 500 a pop, they're very useless and take a long time to level. I bought 5 to try them out and lost 3 in the first battle! I'm sure they're useful later on but I would suggest reducing their cost to around 250 each.... 25x peasant levy and 5x town levy, still very expensive but atleast you can afford to lose them. Otherwise, increase their cost to 1000 and make them actually useful nobles with chainmail etc, even if on foot.

Also I wonder, is it possible to have multiple troop types recruitable from the same location? Sort of like, you can recruit 5 Peasant Levy AND/OR 2 Young Nobles, something like that.

Also, is it possible to have the troop trees diverge along more than 2 paths at a time? I don't really understand why town levy is any different to peasant levy (swordsmen and crossbowmen vs spearmen and bowmen?). It seems to me that it would make more sense to have a generic Militia or Levy unit, from which you can train swordsmen, spearmen, billmen, archers and crossbowmen. If necessary, perhaps diverge between "Infantry" and "Skirmisher" types before later splitting between more specialised unit types.

Also, what's with the upkeep on Sergeant unit types? 223 each instead of 37? That's a massive spike!

 

[WrathofWoe]

Unfortunatly the game only allows you to give a unit two upgrade paths ;0).

 

[othr]

Like the post above said.

Main reason for town vs village recruitment is exactly that.  The game allows only 2 upgrade paths.

For the nobles, I didn't want peasants to become knights.  Their cost is high because if you ever manage to get them to the top of the tree they become extremely powerful.

I want sergeants to be expensive, I'd like them to be no more then 10% of your total force.  They bring party skills with them also (although I'm not sure if those actually do anything for non-hero troops).

 

[Mooncabbage]

I see... At the moment it would be very easy for me to upgrade most of my forces from veteran to sergeant, the problem is the cost. That doesn't feel right to me.... But it works ok I guess. I think at 223 they are still overpriced for infantry, a horse is a big advantage. It's as other said in the thread on unit prices said, sergeants cost like 6 times as much as vets in upkeep, are they worth it? I'd say no. Expense wise I'd say you'd be better off pricing them around 75-150 in terms of upkeep and maybe forgoing the party skills. I think it's unlikely they'd ever make up a massive part of your army at that point, being both expensive and top tier.

I think regarding Young Nobles, that that chain either needs to start off cheaper, or else start with Men at Arms. It makes no sense to be charging 500 for a crappy unit, just because later on it might be very powerful. The better way to balance it would be to make higher level Knights have high upkeep or upgrade costs.

Now there's a point... You might be able to restrict upgrades not so much with upkeep, but with the literal cost of the upgrade. If you think of the upgrade cost as the price of purchasing the unit new gear, and upkeep as their wages, you can restrict the balance of armies financially without making it a cheque balancing operation. If it's going to cost you 500 to upgrade a unit to a sergeant, and then 75 a week in wages, you'd think twice about it. It changes the way the game plays from one where you have to constantly fight everything that moves to fund your army as you build it up, to something I think is a little more realistic.

It's as other said again, I think. Peasants should be largely happy with being fed and have an absolute minimum upkeep cost. If you then want to provide them with a suit of padded leather, a wagon wheel and a big stick, then that's your cost to absorb. It's a path worth investigating.

Lastly, Would it be possible to set sergeants, veterans etc to use the "heraldric" line of equipment that specifically displays my coat of arms? Historically as retainers they would not have their own. Plus it'd be really cool ^^

 

[Valerick]

I see... At the moment it would be very easy for me to upgrade most of my forces from veteran to sergeant, the problem is the cost. That doesn't feel right to me.... But it works ok I guess. I think at 223 they are still overpriced for infantry, a horse is a big advantage. It's as other said in the thread on unit prices said, sergeants cost like 6 times as much as vets in upkeep, are they worth it? I'd say no. Expense wise I'd say you'd be better off pricing them around 75-150 in terms of upkeep and maybe forgoing the party skills. I think it's unlikely they'd ever make up a massive part of your army at that point, being both expensive and top tier.

I think regarding Young Nobles, that that chain either needs to start off cheaper, or else start with Men at Arms. It makes no sense to be charging 500 for a crappy unit, just because later on it might be very powerful. The better way to balance it would be to make higher level Knights have high upkeep or upgrade costs.

Now there's a point... You might be able to restrict upgrades not so much with upkeep, but with the literal cost of the upgrade. If you think of the upgrade cost as the price of purchasing the unit new gear, and upkeep as their wages, you can restrict the balance of armies financially without making it a cheque balancing operation. If it's going to cost you 500 to upgrade a unit to a sergeant, and then 75 a week in wages, you'd think twice about it. It changes the way the game plays from one where you have to constantly fight everything that moves to fund your army as you build it up, to something I think is a little more realistic.

It's as other said again, I think. Peasants should be largely happy with being fed and have an absolute minimum upkeep cost. If you then want to provide them with a suit of padded leather, a wagon wheel and a big stick, then that's your cost to absorb. It's a path worth investigating.

Lastly, Would it be possible to set sergeants, veterans etc to use the "heraldric" line of equipment that specifically displays my coat of arms? Historically as retainers they would not have their own. Plus it'd be really cool ^^

Well thought out post. I agree with everything here. ++ to Sergeants using my own heraldry!

 

[Daemos]

Well thought out post. I agree with everything here. ++ to Sergeants using my own heraldry!

Yeah, definitely.  I was somewhat surprised when I found myself amongst a dozen of my sergeants donning their own heraldry. 

 

[General_Disaray]

I like the idea of offseting the cost of the soldires to the front end at upgrade and lowering the cost of upkeep to compensate. Makes a loss of a high end unit seem a bit more pointed, rather than a relife that I don't have to pay the man's wage now. This would also allow the player to field armies that are larger, able to compeet with the AI lords.

With this system the price of the young noble is just about jusafied realy, having to buy the weapons, horse and armor would cost near 500, maybe a touch less.

 

[Lord Rust]

What I don't get, at least with the nordic castle recruits, is why the low lvl versions use bows?

I'm pretty sure nobles didn't use bows except for hunting and sport, at least as the general rule, and certainly not as horse archers.

I could be wrong of course but i'm pretty sure i'm in the right.

 

[Ramathorn]

I think it would make more sense to have the peasant and levy troop trees end at the veteran level.  Then make the sergeants recruitable from the castle tree.  Since the castle troop tree already costs a lot more than just the regular infantry trees, this would make it a lor harder to get an army of sergeant leveled troops.

I'm no expert, but it seems weird that just any peasant or townsmen can get upgraded into such a high ranking position.  Also call me OCD, but no matter the cost I will always upgrade my veterans to the sergeant level because it bothers me when the + sign is there. 

 

[othr]

I have no issue with giving sergeants 'heraldic' armour, I think it's a great idea but it will decrease their armour rating.  Coat of plates vs chain and cloth.

 

[Ricox]

You can always make another item with the same model, improve the armor rating, put it on the units you need it on and prevent it from being sold in the marketplace.

 

[Mooncabbage]

Mmmmm I was under the impression that there were some higher level "heraldic" armours anyway.

I'm pretty shocked by the response to my suggestions actually, I thought I would be in the minority

I have to agree with El-Diablito, regarding Young Nobles being archers. I found this odd too. I actually tend to assign them to the archers group and dismount them automatically, for protection. I personally think the Knights tree should start at Men-At-Arms, omitting the first two ranks entirely. Probably the first rank should actually be Squire, then Man-at-Arms, then Knight. My understanding is that Squires were the guys that cleaned a knight's armour, looked after his horse etc, while a man at arms was a lesser knight or other mounted soldier in the employ or service of a greater noble.

So probably what you want is Squires, with shields, horses, padded or leather armour, and Spangelhelm type dealies, maybe a light lance or some sort and an arming sword. Then a Man At Arms with Heraldric Chain of some variety, a better shield and horse etc.... and Knights with top of the line everything. You could probably re-jigger it in some way to add extra levels to it, or split it up along the way, but that's my basic idea.

I feel that lower level horses often die too easily, which can quickly result in the mobbing and death of any knight. That might be something that needs to be slightly tweaked, to give them more armour or HP.

 

[othr]

The reason I gave them bows is because I didn't want them to charge and get slaughtered so easily.  I still wanted to make them somewhat useful for the 500 denars you pay for them but it seems like Taleworlds broke horse archery.  This is best demonstrated with the Mongols, the horse archers just charge straight into the enemy where they get chopped up to bits pretty fast.

The AI is not very bright, a mounted bot will charge the enemy line, get stuck in enemy soldiers and then get promptly slaughtered.  It will not attempt to circle around for another pass, the last 3 tiers of mounted soldiers are better prepared for this.  So yes, they were given bows in a desperate attempt to compensate for lousy AI.

Squires are knights in training, not stable boys.  It was later, when knights no longer actually knighted anyone, when the term came to mean nothing but a servant.

 

[Mooncabbage]

No I know they weren't stable boys, but as knights in training they were attached to an actual knight and expected to do all his menial labour, including mucking out his armour, looking after his horse, and all the other nasty stuff apprentices to any profession are expected to do. They still fought with knights as part of a "Lance", a group of mounted troops, only one of which was usually an actual knight. Lances were a basic unit, sort of like a modern squad or fireteam. They didn't fight alone normally, but a lord would count his mounted troops in terms of "Lances", ie. a Knight and his Retinue. Kind of like how i9n more modern times armies were measured in terms of battalion or regimental strength, even though the manpower and capabilities of those units varied wildly.

I'm sure that's a vast oversimplification and probably includes various glaring omissions and falsehoods, but that's my understanding. I'm not really a medieval historian, my expertise is more with the napoleonic era. I haven't taken a strong interest in medieval whatnot since my teenage years. Even so I believe the gist of the above statement is true.

EDIT: I think perhaps you were responding to my assertion that a Man at Arms outranked a squire? I must admit I have absolutely no idea how a Man at Arms ranks or even specifically what they are. My best guess would be that they are professional troops raised by a knight to be a part of his entourage.

Two seconds of research on Wikipedia, which I haven't taken the time to corroborate, reveals:
"Man-at-arms (also called armsman or coistrel) was a medieval term for a soldier, almost always a professional.  It was a term relating to service as a fully armoured heavy cavalryman. It could refer to knights or noblemen, or to members of their retinues, who were well-equipped and well-trained (deriving from having men under arms—meaning to be trained in the use of arms) when serving as armoured cavalrymen. The terms knight and man-at-arms  are often used interchangeably, but while all knights certainly were men-at-arms, not all men-at-arms were knights."

So perhaps the man at arms is completely questionable as a "rank"? I know this is nitpicking and it doesn't affect gameplay that much, but it might be worth dealing with at some point.

 

[othr]

I think I played your mod for was it Empire total war?  That was a very long time ago!  If you thought Empire TW AI was bad, well, Warband AI code is about 30-40 lines of code (this doesn't include single soldier AI which is not moddable).

Men-at-arms, commoner knights, can be moved upwards.  If you have suggestions as to what a squire can be replaced with, shoot please.

 

[Mooncabbage]

Hah! It's a small world. My mod wasn't very popular, it was a little hardcore for some lol ^^

I've done some very brief wikipedia research, and I conclude as follows:

A "Lances fournies" was a medieval army squad that would have surrounded a knight in battle, consisting of a four to ten man team built of squires (man-at-arms, (usually mounted swordsmen), archers, attendants (pages) and the knight himself. These units formed companies under a captain either as mercenary bands or in the retinue of wealthy nobles  and royalty. (wikipedia)

A "Man at Arms" basically meant a professional soldier, especially a mounted one. Essentially, anyone serving in the TACTICAL role of a knight, mounted or otherwise, would be refered to as a man at arms. Hence it would be fair to refer to the troops recruited at the castle as the "Man-at-Arms" tree.

A Squire was an apprentice knight, and didn't actually fight that much. A squire was responsible for:

• Carrying the knight's armor, shield, sword,and duty
• Holding any prisoners the knight takes,
• Rescuing the knight should the knight be taken prisoner,
• Ensuring an honorable burial of the knight in the event of his death,
• Replacing the knight's sword if it was broken or dropped,
• Replacing the knight's horse with a new horse or the squire's should the horse be injured or killed,
• Dressing the knight in his armor,
• Carrying the knight's flag,
• Protecting the knight if needed
• Taking care of the knight's horses
• Accompanying their Knight to tournaments and during the time of war to the battlefield
• Ensuring the armor and weapons of the knight were in good order

An "Esquire" was a man with the wealth of a knight, who for whatever reason could not or chose not to become a knight. Probably not an important distinction and certainly irrelevant to the mod.

A "Sergeant-at-Arms" was a middle class man fighting in the role of mounted heavy or light cavalry, or as infantry, commonly spearmen or crossbowmen. They were generally rated as worth half a knight. I BELIEVE they would have made up the majority of any "lance", realistically. It might not be unrealistic to make "Sergeants" of all kinds mounted (Sergeant Speaman, Sergeant Billmen... etc), and equip them slightly more knight like. This would certainly justify their expense, and it's really not hard to dismount them.

I might also suggest that all "sergeant" types be recruited from the towns troops, being as they are the middle class of the battlefield, and leave peasants to peasanty type roles, such as archers, skirmishers and crossbowmen. It's not as hard as it sounds, most melee troops would come from towns in the form of "Town Levy" or militia or something similar, and you could split them along offensive/defensive lines before deviating further into say, spearmen/pikemen billmen/swordsmen, or any other arrangement you like. Peasants can then be split into Archers/Crossbowmen, or whatever else peasant levys might be (almost certainly poorly armoured with little upward mobility).

I think this arrangement would suit the recruitment style you are aiming for, and I'm not an expert but it shouldn't be TOO hard to switch around the unit trees so they have different starting units. Your major difficulty might be Archers and Crossbowmen, as I don't believe Sergeant at Arms would ever serve as Archers, they might as crossbowmen (still unlikely however).

I'll do a little more research and see if i can find any info on how peasants were equipped and used outside of archers.

Infantry in the Middle Ages (Wikipedia)

EDIT: Having done a little more reading I think the best way to deal with Sergeants in general is to mount them all. It seems that although they might not have been CALLED sergeants, and it might not be historically accurate in ALL cases, there are enough examples of even mounted archers and crossbowmen in western armies that it would not be unreasonable to mount them. Players can easily assign them to infantry or archer groups and dismount them if desired. Therefor I would suggest the simplest thing to do would be to equip all sergeants with a decent mount, and equip them as far as possible to fight on horseback, without compromising their primary role. For example, giving Sergeant Crossbowmen a Light Crossbow, high quality bolts, a decent shield and a sword would make them quite capable. Spearmen might have their spear replaced with a lance. Billmen might also be equipped with a mace of some kind, I don't know ^^

In regards to the knightly branch, perhaps it will be necessary to invent some degrees of knighthood. A few levels of squire perhaps, or maybe levels of Knight. It might go, Squire, Knight-Errant, Knight Bachelor, Knight Banneret...