Later dismounted knights' heavy weapon capability?

[Dux Limitis]

In many 13th-early 14th century manuscripts,most of the dismounted knights fought with sword and spears,although some of the manuscripts like the Maciejowski Crusader Bible showed some heavy weapons(axe,mace,glaives) used on the horses by knights but they were in the minority even compared to the other knights on the same manuscript,contrary to the feudal infantry.I think rated the later dismounted knights as offensive spearmen or swordsmen shoud be more reasonable,or if those less heavy weapon users can represent most of them then you should give the feudal infantry 50% heavy weapon capability too,if mixed weapon could be rated as spearmen but the lesser knighty heavy weapon users in this period can represent most of them.

[Dux Limitis]

1

[Dux Limitis]

1

[Dux Limitis]

1

[rbodleyscott]

In this instance we are treating knightly swords as Heavy Weapon, because they did use relatively large swords and it gets the right effect.

This is a game design decision to get the effect we want, not lack of historical knowledge or a mistake. It is part of the top-down (rather than bottom-up) design.

If you look at the models in game, you will see that they are modelled with normal swords, not two-handers or axes.

If you look at the Combat Capabilities chart at the end of the manual, you will see that Heavy Weapon capability has been redefined as: "Troops armed with heavy cutting weapons such as
heavy sword, axe, halberd or bill."

The inclusion of a few men with spears would not alter this classification.

In later DLCs 14th/15th century dismounted men-at-arms models will be armed with poleaxes - and still count as Heavy Weapon.

[Dux Limitis]

In this instance we are treating knightly swords as Heavy Weapon, because they did use relatively large swords and it gets the right effect.

This is a game design decision to get the effect we want, not lack of historical knowledge or a mistake. It is part of the top-down (rather than bottom-up) design.

If you look at the models in game, you will see that they are modelled with normal swords, not two-handers or axes.

If you look at the Combat Capabilities chart at the end of the manual, you will see that Heavy Weapon capability has been redefined as: "Troops armed with heavy cutting weapons such as
heavy sword, axe, halberd or bill."

The inclusion of a few men with spears would not alter this classification.

In later DLCs 14th/15th century dismounted men-at-arms will be armed with poleaxes - and still count as Heavy Weapon.

But,I think the arming sword can't be treated as heavy weapon,it's lack of enough weight and length also edged.Infact,I have an arming sword and I tried it,if the arming sword can be treated as heavy weapon then spatha can be treat as heavy weapon too.I think the longsword can be treat as heavy weapon but it's appeared in the 14th century.So rated the 13th century dismounted knights as swordsmen could be more accurate.

[rbodleyscott]

In this instance we are treating knightly swords as Heavy Weapon, because they did use relatively large swords and it gets the right effect.

This is a game design decision to get the effect we want, not lack of historical knowledge or a mistake. It is part of the top-down (rather than bottom-up) design.

If you look at the models in game, you will see that they are modelled with normal swords, not two-handers or axes.

In later DLCs 14th/15th century dismounted men-at-arms will be armed with poleaxes - and still count as Heavy Weapon.

But,I think the arming sword can't be treated as heavy weapon,it's lack of enough weight and length also edged.Infact,I have an arming sword and I tried it,if the arming sword can be treated as heavy weapon then spatha can be treat as heavy weapon too.I think the longsword can treat as heavy weapon but it's appeared in the 14th century.

Just look at the pictures you posted yourself and compare the way they are using their swords compared with the way, say, a Roman gladius was used. It is an entirely different technique. Look at the knights chopping their enemies' heads in half with their swords, regardless of armour. Try that with a gladius.

We have chosen to classify them as Heavy Weapon because it gets the right effect. Giving them Swordsmen capability would not.

As I say, this is a top down design, not a bottom-up design, troops are classified to get what we deem to be the right effect, not by measuring the lengths of their swords.

[Dux Limitis]

In this instance we are treating knightly swords as Heavy Weapon, because they did use relatively large swords and it gets the right effect.

This is a game design decision to get the effect we want, not lack of historical knowledge or a mistake. It is part of the top-down (rather than bottom-up) design.

If you look at the models in game, you will see that they are modelled with normal swords, not two-handers or axes.

In later DLCs 14th/15th century dismounted men-at-arms will be armed with poleaxes - and still count as Heavy Weapon.

But,I think the arming sword can't be treated as heavy weapon,it's lack of enough weight and length also edged.Infact,I have an arming sword and I tried it,if the arming sword can be treated as heavy weapon then spatha can be treat as heavy weapon too.I think the longsword can treat as heavy weapon but it's appeared in the 14th century.

Just look at the pictures you posted yourself and compare the way they are using the swords compared with the way, say, a Roman gladius was used. It is an entirely different technique. Look at the knights chopping their enemies' heads in half with their arming swords, regardless of armour. Try that with a gladius.

We have chosen to classify them as Heavy Weapon because it gets the in game effect that we want. Treating them as swordsmen would not.

As I say, this is a top down design, not a bottom-up design, troops are classified to get what we deem to be the right effect, not by measuring the lengths of their swords.

But you know,the Roman spatha sword(longer sword,gladius is short sword) used by cavalry and later both infantry and cavalry,it's main usage was slash,not stab,that can be see on some Roman relief and late paintings.I really don't know what's the difference of ways they were used between the arming sword and spatha.Mainly slash,cleave and chop.But if because of the way of usage the arming sword can be treat as heavy weapon,then what's the difference between the arming sword and two-handed axe?And still,I think give the 13th century dismounted knights heavy weapon cability can't get the accurate in game effect.Because that made them could stand against the couched lances just with sword and shields.

[rbodleyscott]

Top Down design trumps Bottom Up considerations.

The idea is to get the right relative effect between the different High Medieval troop-types. Troops in different eras are classified to get the right relative effects within their own era.

We clearly aren't going to agree on this, but we are happy with our design decision, and do not plan to change it.

[Dux Limitis]

Top Down design trumps Bottom Up considerations.

The idea is to get the right relative effect between the different Medieval troop-types. Troops in different eras are classified to get the right relative effects within their own era.

We clearly aren't going to agree on this, but we are happy with our design decision, and do not plan to change it.

That's a pity,but thanks for the answers,mister.

[companion]

Sounds roughly right considering that the knights were trained in armored combat and that quality of medieval era mail armors might not be as good as what we expect.

[Horde]

Just look at it as an abstraction. If they were swordsmen, this will be a better representation of men at arms under the current rules?

The way I understand it, swordsmen are warriors with a somewhat flexible formation and short weapons, that, after the charge, struggle to fight against close shieldwalls when they are steady but are a bit more resilient when disorganised. So german and gauls are swordmen even if many of them use spears, Zulus would be swordsmen even if they use short spears, etc. Heavy weapons are troops whose style of fight is better than swordsmen against opponents who have superior armour, and who receive a small buff when they are armored. I think they are better against steady spearmen, also. Globally, it represents an elite force that can break through shieldwalls in close combat, and who gain an small buff for being armoured if they fight against similar heavy foot.

Additionally, if they were swordsmen they should be impact foot (which I dont like, because as far as I know they were not renowned from an fiery charge), of light spear (I think this is quite similar to heavy weapons in impact).

[TheGrayMouser]

Oakshott Type XIIA and XIIIA swords were often used 2 handed and originate 12th century.

As you can see, they are very effective versus Hill Giants!

[Dux Limitis]

Oakshott Type XIIA and XIIIA swords were often used 2 handed and originate 12th century.

As you can see, they are very effective versus Hill Giants!

Still,it that can represent most of them?But still,I think they should be treated as swordsmen but already heavily armoured and superior.That made them could well against other foots too.

[melm]

By the way, is there any historical source that shows dismounted knights can stand the ground against charging knights in the open? Currently I found dismounted knights can defend against knights quite well.

[Dux Limitis]

By the way, is there any historical source that shows dismounted knights can stand the ground against charging knights in the open? Currently I found dismounted knights can defend against knights quite well.

I remembered only in later two centuries,not in this period.And sometimes even in later centuries they still can't defend against mounted charging men-at-arms in the open terran.Like in Patay,1429AD,and in Formigny,1450ad.

[Dux Limitis]

Just look at it as an abstraction. If they were swordsmen, this will be a better representation of men at arms under the current rules?

The way I understand it, swordsmen are warriors with a somewhat flexible formation and short weapons, that, after the charge, struggle to fight against close shieldwalls when they are steady but are a bit more resilient when disorganised. So german and gauls are swordmen even if many of them use spears, Zulus would be swordsmen even if they use short spears, etc. Heavy weapons are troops whose style of fight is better than swordsmen against opponents who have superior armour, and who receive a small buff when they are armored. I think they are better against steady spearmen, also. Globally, it represents an elite force that can break through shieldwalls in close combat, and who gain an small buff for being armoured if they fight against similar heavy foot.

Additionally, if they were swordsmen they should be impact foot (which I dont like, because as far as I know they were not renowned from an fiery charge), of light spear (I think this is quite similar to heavy weapons in impact).

Heavily armoured and superior swordsmen capability could well against other foots too.If you treated them as heavy weapon foot they can against couched lances charge.Try that with your mounted knights charge against them in the game.I don't think any type of swords could stand against that in reality.

[melm]

By the way, is there any historical source that shows dismounted knights can stand the ground against charging knights in the open? Currently I found dismounted knights can defend against knights quite well.

I remembered only in later two centuries,not in this period.And sometimes even in later centuries they still can't defend against mounted charging men-at-arms in the open terran.Like in Patay,1429AD,and in Formigny,1450ad.

I looked at the stat more closely. Currently, knights charging dismounted knights has 50% win 50% draw odds. It looks like that we still can say the dismoutned knights are in disadvantage against knights in the open in the impact phase, although it's difficult to disrupt the dismounted knights. So the system looks safe right now.

[Horde]

Heavily armoured and superior swordsmen capability could well against other foots too.If you treated them as heavy weapon foot they can against couched lances charge.Try that with your mounted knights charge against them in the game.I don't think any type of swords could stand against that in reality.

I think they would have the additional 10 POA advantage due to being heavily armoured and with heavy weapons. But, if the problem is the Impact phase against cavalry, keep in mind that if you make them swordsmen you would have to give them either no impact capabilities (so they will be at a severe POA disadvantage against every melee-oriented unit), light spear (+100 POA against charging cavalry) or impact foot (again, +100 POA against charging cavalry, but better against foot, and make them shock troops so they will follow if the enemy falls back).

Either way, light spear men at arms, impact men at arms and heavy weapon men at arms will be at a net -100 POA against charging knight lancers, assuming both have the same quality and its open terrain, since they have +200 POA against vs this kind of troops, as melm shows in the second message that I cite:

By the way, is there any historical source that shows dismounted knights can stand the ground against charging knights in the open? Currently I found dismounted knights can defend against knights quite well.

I looked at the stat more closely. Currently, knights charging dismounted knights has 50% win 50% draw odds. It looks like that we still can say the dismoutned knights are in disadvantage against knights in the open in the impact phase, although it's difficult to disrupt the dismounted knights. So the system looks safe right now.

Cavalry attacks werent an automatic victory against formed infantry. I´ll show you some examples from the Iberian peninsula. In Aljubarrota, christian knights attacked many times muslim infantry, until they were tired and repelled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alarcos#Battle). In Atoleiros, numerically superior castilian cavalry attacked the Portuguese, who repelled them by forming a square (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Atoleiros). In Las Navas, which has not a good description in the English wikipedia, the military orders that made the center of the spanish line had heavy losses; they broke the muslims after a day of fighting, and many movements on the flanks (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_d ... Desarrollo). In Sagrajas, outnumbered Castilian cavalry attacked and was repulsed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sagrajas).

In every Christian defeat, the knight failed to disrupt enemy foot, as far as I know, and I suspect that many times they didnt charge if they dont fancy their possibilities to win. Of course, apart from the Portuguese, their opponents werent "dismounted knights", but I dont see why foot men at arms would be worse than other infantry. Of course, the actual rout, destruction and pursuit of Christian troops was caused by other kinds of troops, and missile troops contributed to the attrition.

Of course, another possibility is to make dismounted knights offensive spearmen and not heavy weapon troops (I think you can do it by dismounting knights in certain armies). But they´ll be better than heavy weapon men at arms.

[gribol]

By the way, is there any historical source that shows dismounted knights can stand the ground against charging knights in the open? Currently I found dismounted knights can defend against knights quite well.

I think, that game needs some necessary simplifications.
In normal circumstances inflantry, including dismounted knights, will use some kind of "fortifications" to slower cavalry charge and dont get trampled.
In lot of medieval battles you will find examples. I think, that its hard to put all of this possibilities to the game.