Suggestions for revision of Russian army lists

[Winterbourne]

A third possibility for a stop-gap model for the senior Druzhina would be Byzantine kite-shield lancer models.

That is most preferable solution IMO

[Krevan]

The possibilities therefore are:
1) Use the early western knights model, but increase the armour rating.
2) Use the current Rus noble cavalry, but re-animate it charging with couched lance, and increase the armour rating.

I like the first option. If it is not possible to draw textures units, then this is a good option.

[Krevan]

A third possibility for a stop-gap model for the senior Druzhina would be Byzantine kite-shield lancer models.

A good option. Probably the best.

[rbodleyscott]

Since it is only a stop-gap, we would prefer not to make new textures.

We have two available texture sets for this model. Which would you prefer / find least inauthentic. (These are Side A textures. The side B textures are similar but different colours).

The ones in the top picture are the ones used for higher quality Byzantine units. The only question is whether the Chi-Ro symbol is plausible for senior druzhina.

Side A Texture set A.jpg (250.37 KiB) Viewed 2299 times

Side A Texture set B.jpg (236.76 KiB) Viewed 2299 times

[rbodleyscott]

And please let's not have any grief about the Byzantine banner

We know it is a Palaiologan flag and dates to the very end of this era, but we had to have one flag for Byzantines, and this is the best known, and will be (mostly) authentic for the Central Byzantine state from 1260 to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks.

Incidentally, in Byzantine civil war battles, the enemy side will use the same icon banner as the Rus.

[Krevan]

Since it is only a stop-gap, we would prefer not to make new textures.

We have two available texture sets for this model. Which would you prefer / find least inauthentic. (These are Side A textures. The side B textures are similar but different colours).

The ones in the top picture are the ones used for higher quality Byzantine units. The only question is whether the Chi-Ro symbol is plausible for senior druzhina.


Side A Texture set A.jpg


Side A Texture set B.jpg

I like option B. The horses are brown, they are similar to the horses that were used in Rus.

[Dux Limitis]

And please let's not have any grief about the Byzantine banner

We know it is a Palaiologan flag and dates to the very end of this era, but we had to have one flag for Byzantines, and this is the best known, and will be (mostly) authentic for the Central Byzantine state from 1260 to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks.

Incidentally, in Byzantine civil war battles, the enemy side will use the same icon banner as the Rus.

I think you should use the Labarum flag for Byzantine army instead of Palaiologan flag.The Labarum flag should be more suitable and accurate,since the late Roman era.

[melm]

And please let's not have any grief about the Byzantine banner

We know it is a Palaiologan flag and dates to the very end of this era, but we had to have one flag for Byzantines, and this is the best known, and will be (mostly) authentic for the Central Byzantine state from 1260 to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks.

Incidentally, in Byzantine civil war battles, the enemy side will use the same icon banner as the Rus.

I think you should use the Labarum flag for Byzantine army instead of Palaiologan flag.The Labarum flag should be more suitable and accurate,since the late Roman era.

Chi-Rho insignia may not be popularly used after Late Antiquity. I haven't seen there's Chi-Rho insignia with the emperors on the Byzantine coins from 11th-15th century,. Usually just Patriachal cross or Greek cross. But of course, I have limited knowledge on it. So if I am correct then both Chi-Rho insignia and Tetragrammatic cross are only suitable for a fraction of time. If we are considering the influence of Paradox, Crusader King 3 uses Tetragrammatic cross as Byzantine's flag

[toska]

Set B seems the best option.

[Dux Limitis]

And please let's not have any grief about the Byzantine banner

We know it is a Palaiologan flag and dates to the very end of this era, but we had to have one flag for Byzantines, and this is the best known, and will be (mostly) authentic for the Central Byzantine state from 1260 to the fall of Constantinople to the Turks.

Incidentally, in Byzantine civil war battles, the enemy side will use the same icon banner as the Rus.

I think you should use the Labarum flag for Byzantine army instead of Palaiologan flag.The Labarum flag should be more suitable and accurate,since the late Roman era.

Chi-Rho insignia may not be popularly used after Late Antiquity. I haven't seen there's Chi-Rho insignia with the emperors on the Byzantine coins from 11th-15th century,. Usually just Patriachal cross or Greek cross. But of course, I have limited knowledge on it. So if I am correct then both Chi-Rho insignia and Tetragrammatic cross are only suitable for a fraction of time. If we are considering the influence of Paradox, Crusader King 3 uses Tetragrammatic cross as Byzantine's flag

Then maybe use the Bandon flag instead,since the Leo VI's time.

[melm]

Then maybe use the Bandon flag instead,since the Leo VI's time.

What could be on the bandon flag then? Still we need a symbol on it.

[Dux Limitis]

Then maybe use the Bandon flag instead,since the Leo VI's time.

What could be on the bandon flag then? Still we need a symbol on it.

[AlanGord]

I also like option B.

[lapdog666]

could you change shield picture , that could do the trick

[Zoidfarb]

I feel I am late to the party but I'd like to comment on the Russian Army lists in this game and some other Eastern European lists as well. Firstly this game is quite enjoyable and addictive. I do enjoy playing Eastern European nations and Mongol Army lists. I like the exoticism and fluidity of cavalry. I can't say I am an expert of History, this is more of a hobby that arose out of playing miniature wargames like DBM and reading a bunch of Osprey Men at Arms books.

I read most of the previous posts and have to say I am in some agreement, I was quite surprised to see Western Knights in the Russian Army lists, I think these units are better served as coming from "Allied" lists. I thought this was just an attempt to give this list some shock cavalry ability. The cavalry of medieval Slavic states that weren't overcome by Western influence was the Druzhina. The question is how did they fight and how can this be transposed to the game. Complicating the matter is the unique history of the Rus, the influences are Norse and nomad. Also there doesn't seem to be readliy accesible historical accounts. Some attest that the Druzhina fought often on foot like the Norse and Varangians which the Rus supplied, others state the existence of a Rus Khaganate where Turkic influence existed, were they horsearchers? It probably is accepted that the Druzhina were armoured professional retinues of the leaders, this was how they were also described in Poland by Arab chroniclers.

So how will they be presented in the game? Will they be categorized as shock cavalry Knights? Is armour enough to be considered such? Consider the battle of Hastings. Gamewise the Normans are considered knights yet they couldn't smash the shieldwall and tried feigned flights instead to draw out the English Shieldwall and weaken it and eventually victory. A "cavalry" tactic instead of a "knight'" tactic gamewise. I think it can also be accepted that the equipment used was a bit old fashioned in Eastern Europe compared to the West. Russian armies recruited nomads "the black hats"as light cavalry and seemed to fall for the Mongol feints the same that knights did at Legnitz or Mohi so I would think that there is an argument that perhaps at least the senior Druzhina fought with emphasis on a strong charge.

So how best to do justice to the Eastern European Heavy cavalry (I think the early Polish List should benefit from this as well)? Naturally this applies to the earlier lists and changes completely in Russian lists post Mongol invasion.

I think there are two options

1. A new unit called Druzhina or Eastern Knight or Eastern Heavy Cavalry. This is a knight classed unit with lance that is only classed as "some armour" to reflect lighter and more old fashioned equipment.

2. We consider that the Eastern European Cavalry was more influenced by the Steppe and uses hit and run tactics. In this case to make these units more effective and to actually make them "hit" instead of run all the time I think adding a 50% javelins ability (that light spear they have can be thrown) would make these units more competitive. This ability would reflect the use of the thrown spear that persisted in the region till the 1400's and could also simulate some casualties from fencing with the withdrawing cavalry.



My suggestions are inspired by the Hungarian lists
I think these could apply to the Polish lists as well.
I think some of the Lithuanian cavalry (the non-light) should have the 50% javelins ability too, perhaps some of the irregular foot of these lists.
A dismounted Noble Cavalry unit from the force selection window would be a good idea as an option for those that believe influence was more Norse, also this would be a more competitive full strength unit as opposed to a dismounted on deployment unit.

[Zoidfarb]

Not necessarily. They may have skirmished with their lances, which we know could be thrown.

Maybe give the Armoured Noble Cavalry of the Eastern European Army Lists " 50% javelin " ability akin to the 50% Bow of the Hungarian Lists ?

[Sabratha]

Most likely, the heavy riders, armed as knights and fighting as knights, were the majority

That would be a real pity, as it would make the Rus armies very similar to Polish and Hungarian and even Teutonic Order, whereas currently they have their own unique identity.

The Kievan Rus armies in the 11th century were in many ways very similar to those of Poland or indeed Serbia. The dominant post-tribal early fedual slavic warfare model was not that different between these states. The armies relied mostly on a combination of armored mounted royal retinues (Polish: "Drużynnicy") combined with massed spearmen with large shields (Polish: "Tarczownicy"), with some supporting archers.

The increased variation appeared in the 12th century and gained pace since: The Polish society (and as a result also its army) was adopting a lot of western features and thus became more like that of Germans and Bohemians. The Rus armies on the other hand were shaped increasingly through their warfare against the Polovstians, Kipchak and other steppe peoples, so they became more cavalry-focused and gained some horse archers. The bow continued to be the main infantry ranged weapon in Rus, while in Poland it was being more and more replaced by the crossbow.

1. A new unit called Druzhina or Eastern Knight or Eastern Heavy Cavalry. This is a knight classed unit with lance that is only classed as "some armour" to reflect lighter and more old fashioned equipment.

If we are speaking about 11th century to mid-12th century Polish drużyna, then I would actually go the opposite direction: Make them armored non-knight lancers (akin to how heavy 11th century Arab lancers are represented in the game).
These would be chainmail wearing horsemen, not that different in armor from contemporary Bohemians, Austrians or Germans. The difference (if any) would be in the tactics and the offensive capacity rather than armor.

I believe the Russian drużyna of the same period would be nearly identical. Which is not to say that Rus armies should not have some lighter "protected" cavalry in addition to the chainmail-clad lancers.

In contrast, Polish 1000-1150 armies would have little to none lighter cavalry.
By the early 12th century chronicles (Gall Anonim's cheifly), the Polish army was clearly focused on two types of units - the mounted "drużyna" and the foot "tarczownicy", with no real sources mentioning an intermediate or light cavalry of any significant numbers.

Again: Sources are not very numerous for this period, but I'm pretty confident when it comes to the Polish army. Whether or not the contemporary 11th to early 12th century Rus armies should have more light cavalry is a matter of debate.

[Zoidfarb]

1. A new unit called Druzhina or Eastern Knight or Eastern Heavy Cavalry. This is a knight classed unit with lance that is only classed as "some armour" to reflect lighter and more old fashioned equipment.

If we are speaking about 11th century to mid-12th century Polish drużyna, then I would actually go the opposite direction: Make them armored non-knight lancers (akin to how heavy 11th century Arab lancers are represented in the game).
These would be chainmail wearing horsemen, not that different in armor from contemporary Bohemians, Austrians or Germans. The difference (if any) would be in the tactics and the offensive capacity rather than armor.

I believe the Russian drużyna of the same period would be nearly identical. Which is not to say that Rus armies should not have some lighter "protected" cavalry in addition to the chainmail-clad lancers.

In contrast, Polish 1000-1150 armies would have little to none lighter cavalry.
By the early 12th century chronicles (Gall Anonim's cheifly), the Polish army was clearly focused on two types of units - the mounted "drużyna" and the foot "tarczownicy", with no real sources mentioning an intermediate or light cavalry of any significant numbers.

Again: Sources are not very numerous for this period, but I'm pretty confident when it comes to the Polish army. Whether or not the contemporary 11th to early 12th century Rus armies should have more light cavalry is a matter of debate.

I agree about the lack of mention of light cavalry in Poland, what little is known of the period is armored cavalry and shield bearers. Another account by Ibrahim bin Jakub notes the importance of the Druzhina during his travels there in the late 900's, he seems to have been impressed by this cavalry. The Anglo-Danish king Cnut also received a contingent of Polish mounted troops from his uncle Boleslaw a few years later. I think these few facts support the idea that the main and best troops were armoured cavalry. Do the clothes make the man or in this case the armour make the unit type? Considering that at the Battle of Hastings the Norman cavalry couldn't break the English shieldwall and tried feint tactics to draw the defenders' line out and that some horsemen held their lances overhead as if to thrust or throw as seen on the Bayeaux Tapestry and yet are classified as knights in the game then I don't think it is a stretch to count early heavy Eastern European cavalry as knights gamewise considering there are no accounts of the latter skirmishing. Since these countries are on the outskirts of European civilization then giving them a lower armour rating (partially armoured) would reflect the difficulty to obtain better equipment in these areas. Parts of Scandinavia should be similarly considered. The knight unit in the game has quite a lot of bonuses, giving these units a lance wouldn't even things out much, I've played some games with the Mongols and their" best equipped cavalry " has trouble directly charging knights even when the latter are disrupted. This is why I think an Eastern European style "knight" with lower armour rating (compared to most of the period) for most except the generals' bodyguards. Other Slavic nations like the Serbs were noted for ferocious charges, not much of a stretch to believe these traditions were common to other slavs who traced Sarmation heritage (at a later date).

The other option I think would add value to these cavalry units of Eastern Europe is to give the "light spear" armed units partial javelin ability. (I got this idea from the Hungarian Armoured Noble cavalry with 50% Bow ability). This would give these units some "hit" before they run.

[GryfoCezar]

The other option I think would add value to these cavalry units of Eastern Europe is to give the "light spear" armed units partial javelin ability. (I got this idea from the Hungarian Armoured Noble cavalry with 50% Bow ability). This would give these units some "hit" before they run.

This would especially help Lithuanian army list. Their cavalry would be much more usefull.

[Sabratha]

I agree about the lack of mention of light cavalry in Poland, what little is known of the period is armored cavalry and shield bearers. Another account by Ibrahim bin Jakub notes the importance of the Druzhina during his travels there in the late 900's, he seems to have been impressed by this cavalry. The Anglo-Danish king Cnut also received a contingent of Polish mounted troops from his uncle Boleslaw a few years later. I think these few facts support the idea that the main and best troops were armoured cavalry.

Oh for certain, these were "retinue" troops. Armored superior cavalry in the game's terms.

Since these countries are on the outskirts of European civilization then giving them a lower armour rating (partially armoured) would reflect the difficulty to obtain better equipment in these areas.

I would disagree on this, because the technology (chainmail) was exactly the same, the shields were similar kite-shaped cavalry shields as those used by the Normans, French, Serbians, Byzantines etc. So I see no reason to lower the armor rating of the actual mounted troops. If you got to be a member of the mounted retinue, you would have this sort of kit. If you couldn't afford it, then you would not be part of the retinue to begin with.

And here is where we reach a certain issue related to the game's "point-=based-army-model". The reality was that the Polish drużynnik had the same armor as his German counterpart, but the German Emperor was able to field larger armies with larger contingents, (predominately due to the dependence on church-land-contingents).

Bolesław Chrobry's wars against Emperor Henry II can be summarized as smaller but faster and more nimble Polish armies maneuvering around the much larger and slower main German force, with both sides trying to "game" the local Lusatian and Meisssen power players as well as the pagan tribes to the north.

So it seems the total cavalry percentage was larger in the Polish armies than in German ones, but the total numbers were higher among the Germans. So if both main armies would hypothetically meet at a pitched battle, the German knights would end up outnumbering the Polish cavalry, even though the ratio of cavalrymen-to-footmen would be higher among the Poles.
...which is not something that can be well simulated in FOG:M "points-based-system".

Parts of Scandinavia should be similarly considered.

Scandinavia was poorer than either Polish or German lands. Which was one of the reasons why Scandinavian armies appeared to have less cavalry and later on less armored footmen than Polish, German or Bohemian armies.

So my argument will be that German armies of that era were more similar to Polish ones, than either was to Scandinavian armies.

Which isn't that surprising once you consider the economic realities. The German and Polish lands are both part of the same north European plain, while Scandinavia is much more rugged, composed of mostly poor post-glacial soils.