Slitherine

It seems everyone is on vacations, that's why. Not much activity around here lately, let's hope it's not because people started playing Mortal Kombat 63 instead

The tourism industry must be having a huge boost then!

Anyway, I am happy for people to begin suggesting names for this mod, as I can't think of any good ones.

Also, the Merkits map (1200) is done now! Although the campaign is mostly focused on the Mongol attacks on China and Europe, I thought that an interesting way to introduce the new concepts of the mod would be to have the campaigns of Temujin until 1206, where you 'unite (crush) the Mongol peoples into a new empire'!
- BNC

The first unit is up:
That screen was made on my random test map that I also used to make things like the gas shell work, not on any actual maps.

As for the units themselves, do people think that the range 6 artillery that I used in WWI would be good for the trebuchets and possibly cannons, or would 3 or 4 be more reasonable. Archers and Mounted arhers are likely to have 2, with Longbowmen having 3.

- BNC

Wow, the trebuchet really does look nice

As to ranges, I usually consider the issue of range to be directly tied to the map scale. If we strive for historicity, unless the scale of your maps is really tactical (ie. 1 hex = 300 metres), the accurate range of most weapons should be 1. Infantry and archers would have the range of 1, perhaps the longbow would have a range of 2 as English longbows could offer the range of just under 400 metres at most. If so, the trebuchet should also have a range of 1 or perhaps 2 (roughly 300 metres seem to be the max).

However, I understand that your main concern is playability, and not really historicity. If so, then I would give it the range of 3: it's the most vulnerable unit and needs plenty of defence, but should also offer decent support against entrenched enemy.

RE: unit range. This is going to be a tough one and may depend on play testing instead of historical accuracy to find the right balance. To give you an idea where to start I would suggest with working on the premise of each hex being equivalent to 100 meters range. With that as a base we would be working with numbers like this.

Traction Trebuchet- 150m range = 2 hexes. This if what the Mongols and Chinese were using in the early 1200s.

Counterweight Trebuchet- 500m range = 5 hexes. Used by European, Arab and Persian forces since the late 1100s. First brought to China by the Mongol's Persian engineers at the Siege of Fancheng in 1268.

Heavy Counterweight Trebuchet- 300m range = 3 hexes. Threw a stone twice the size of a normal counterweight trebuchet. First used mid 1200s.

On to bows.

This is a tough one to approach due to the various factors involved. You may see claims both bows would reach 500m, but that is on a practice range with light target arrows and was done for bragging rights at most. Battle capabilities were a different reality.

What we know of the proper use of the longbow comes from the training doctrine of Edward III. Longbowmen would use two types of arrows. The heavy arrow for use against armored troops which was required to be accurately fired out to 220m and the lighter arrow for unarmored troops whos range was out to 400m. (Is it possible to use the change unit stance button to reflect both types? Maybe if the archers are aiming their bow to the sky its the lighter arrow with 4 range and a lesser hard attack value? Change stance and the bowman aims parallel to the ground and uses the heavy arrow with a range of 2 and an increased hard attack?)

Now the Mongols recurve composite bow is a pretty standard design if maybe a little smaller than other Eastern bows of the time. The main drawback to the bow is the increased wear and tear it suffers in battle compared to the longbow. Due to the multiple parts held together by glue these bows rates of failure increase the longer they are used. They become particularly poor designs in warm wet climates. (The bows limitations were one reason the Mongols liked to fight in the middle of winter when the cold would stiffen the bow.) Now that said the Mongol's bow could achieve the same ranges as the English/Welsh longbow, but with significantly less penetrating power. They also used two types of arrows however their heavy arrow was intended to be used from 110-150m to achieve the same penetration as the longbow and their lighter arrow could reach the 400m and be just as deadly to unarmored troops. (Again can you pull off a change stance with this? Heavy arrow range 1, light range 3 or 4?)

I hope that helps. If you need any more info on weaponry or tactics feel free to ask. If I don't know something it just gives me an excuse to go find out.

ducesettutamen wrote:If you need any more info on weaponry or tactics feel free to ask. If I don't know something it just gives me an excuse to go find out.

That's the spirit!

Now seriously, great post mate. I see we're thinking along the same lines, though from the maps (and the WWI mod he made earlier) I gather BNC thinks more in terms of 1 hex = 10 km, so he would have to chose the ranges based on playability rather than historical accuracy, as he did with WWI artillery ranges. Or am I wrong?
Cheers

Arrows are pretty effective against armour until effective plate armour became available. Against the armour available to front line Knights at Agincourt you were probably looking at 20m range for full armour penetration. But then again the quality of armour was rather variable and with multiple hits and partial penetration there would be a lot of serious injury (to men and horses) well outside the 20m effective range. But I digress.

Your suggested ranges sound pretty reasonable as a means of conveying the different characteristics and uses of the weapons. Based on this, rather than worry about actual ranges, maybe it's easier to think of the roles the troops were used for.

There's plenty of records that show archery was used as a form of artillery in both direct fire and supporting fire (where you fire from behind close combat troops at a high angle to drop onto enemy rear ranks during combat), and some viking sagas described bows being used (usually from behind the front line) in melee. There's a strong sense that this is viewed as a cowardly way to fight, although being a good shot was appreciated.
Crossbows and slings couldn't do the high angle firing so probably should not provide supporting fire, although the potential anti armour capability of both weapons was better than longbows.
Javelins were used in an artillery role, although the useful range was pretty short, and in a close support type role to harrass flanks.
Roman ballistae (and probably other equivalents) were very accurate to about double bow range and some reports suggest that they were used for long range sniper fire.

One option might be to look at how nations mixed units, and tweak combat stats accordingly. Units with integral missile troops would be swtitchable to weak artillery units (maybe Rof 30%) but retain high passive attack as the combat troops would be ready at all times, while a double armed unit could switch between either arty, combat or mixed status.

Halibutt wrote:I gather BNC thinks more in terms of 1 hex = 10 km, so he would have to chose the ranges based on playability rather than historical accuracy, as he did with WWI artillery ranges. Or am I wrong?
Cheers

I was looking at things the same way. If historical accuracy was based on the map size then every missile unit would have a range of 1. If he creates ranges and movement speeds based on a tactical match up and just expands them to the strategic level things should flow smoothly. Kind of a reverse to the way Panzer Corp did it where artillery was only firing a couple hundred meters on city maps but retained a measure of historical accuracy on the strategic maps.

Halibutt wrote:However, I understand that your main concern is playability, and not really historicity.

It is pretty hard to get each individual unit in its correct location when we're thinking about a war where (according to Western Europe anyway) it was "Civilization v. the Plague". With WWI, yes there could have been for more historical accuracy, but I din't want to spend 8 years researching and stuff for it, and so I just found some rough maps, and have been gradually fixing it in the patches. But in short, if it isn't playable, why bother?

Halibutt wrote:I see we're thinking along the same lines, though from the maps (and the WWI mod he made earlier) I gather BNC thinks more in terms of 1 hex = 10 km, so he would have to chose the ranges based on playability rather than historical accuracy, as he did with WWI artillery ranges. Or am I wrong?
Cheers

The WWI artillery were set up as historically, as in its early stages I planned to have a row of barbed wire in no-man's land for each side, as well as an empty line, so 6 was the lowest feasible amount of range in one arty battery was to hit the other. Later one that idea began to have major issues, especially when I did the Verdun map, and so I scrapped it, but the long range worked well anyway, and so I kept that.

About the 1 hex = 10km business, I don't design maps with each hex having any specific size. I simply rip a map off Google for the area I want to cover, and then make it somewhere around 25x25 - 40x40 hex maps. Any larger and the scenario begins to be too much to think about (the main reason why I haven't played much of bebro's excellent IJA campaign and his more recent Inferno). Clearly my older Grand Strategy maps run differently, but there is a lot of empty space on them, especially War of the World. Rearmament is something like 120x90, which still isn't that large (I think Battlefield Europe is around 180x120, and the cancelled 'Struggle for Russia' was something around 300x200)

captainjack wrote:Arrows are pretty effective against armour until effective plate armour became available. Against the armour available to front line Knights at Agincourt you were probably looking at 20m range for full armour penetration. But then again the quality of armour was rather variable and with multiple hits and partial penetration there would be a lot of serious injury (to men and horses) well outside the 20m effective range. But I digress.

...

One option might be to look at how nations mixed units, and tweak combat stats accordingly. Units with integral missile troops would be swtitchable to weak artillery units (maybe Rof 30%) but retain high passive attack as the combat troops would be ready at all times, while a double armed unit could switch between either arty, combat or mixed status.

a) Remind me when Agincourt was - I can't recall it too well (My guess is 1500s)

b) Archery has become an interesting topic here. I have decided to divide the units into 5 major classes.

- Infantry -> Melee Armies (Swordsmen and Pikemen)
- Tanks -> 'Machines' (Battering Rams, Elephants etc.)
- Recon -> Horse Units
- Artillery -> Tactical (Long Range Foot Archers, Catapults etc.
- Anti-Tank -> Supporting Tacitcal units (Shorter range Archers, to keep the city-capture ability)

- Fighter -> Weather units (Including that storm that killed the Mongol fleets in 1274 and 1281 near Japan)
- Structure - same, but now used in walls as well.
- Capital Ship -> 'Naval' (All shipping except for naval transports)
- Sea Transport - same

All other classes won't be used at all, and can be considered removed all together.

##############################

Someone brought up ROF for one of the units - I don't actually get how this works, and so in WWI I didn't use it. I plan to do that in this as well, unless there would be a sensible reason to use it.

Also, I seems to me like you have all decided on:

Trebuchets - 3 or 4
Longbowmen - 2
Most other Archers, including Mongol Keshiks - 2
Front-line archers - 1

But... what about the cannons at the end of the campaign?

New units that I would like icons for:

Byzantine archer, mounted and siege type units.
Chinese foot spearmen
Polish/Central European foot Archers
Japanese samurai and other important units
Mongol mounted archers firing bows
Persian/Indian Foot archers and standard soldiers
Western knights.

As well as some unusual ones:

- Mongol palace yurt on wheels.
- European and Mongol soldiers with early 1300s firearms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_cannon
- Kamikaze storm (NOT the WWII version)
- Roman Scorpion (Apparently they were still used by the Byzantines until the 14th century)
- Crusader Fortresses
- Great Wall of China unit (going SouthWest-NorthEast)

Also, I will hopefully be able to show the Byzantine Empire scenario tomorrow, which is set in 1290-1, if you succeed in 3rd Poland-Hungary

- BNC

BiteNibbleChomp wrote:- Fighter -> Weather units (Including that storm that killed the Mongol fleets in 1274 and 1281 near Japan)

I was planning on using something like that as well - unfortunately there's a HUGE issue, namely that PzC doesn't support a "Gaia faction" that is hostile to everyone.
Hopefully one of the new games that are on their way - Rudankort's WH40k:Armageddon or Order of Battle - will support something like that (or even a greater number of factions hostile to each other or allied, depending on scenario settings).

Also, as far as I know there are still some "hardcoded" unit properties, such as a bonus AT units get vs. Tanks, so I'd probably have put Cavalry as Tanks and Pikemen etc. as Anti-Tank, where one getting bonuses vs. the other makes perfect sense.
Lighter cavalry could be given the "reconmove" trait to enable them to move like vanilla recce units at your leisure.
Also, you can lump all archers and artillery into a "Ranged" category and give some units the ability to capture cities by using the "captureflag" unit trait.
I guess you'll have to play around with it for a bit to see what the AI makes of certain units/unit types, but maybe you have that already figured out.
_____
rezaf

BiteNibbleChomp wrote:Remind me when Agincourt was - I can't recall it too well

25 October 1415
Like you, I'm a bit too young to remember it first hand...

There's reports from the Norman period (roughly 1100 to 1150 so before plate armour ) of Norman knights being pinned to the horse by archers in South Wales, where the arrows pierced through mail, padding, legs, saddle and horse and out the other side. They were probably armour piercing heads and 900mm arrows, but that's still pretty impressive (possibly less impressive if you were riding the horse).

In simple terms, mail (over padding) is excellent against slashing weapons but not so good against pointy weapons. This isn't news - the Romans knew that mail wasn't very effective against arrows and started using segmented armour after being shot up badly by Parthian archers. If I remember right this would have been about 50bce, so around 1200 years before Normans and Mongol hordes.

Arrow proof armour became available a few decades after Agincourt. Despite the loss of a lot of archers when they first encountered this, the English managed to win using pollaxes - a bit like a can opener on stick. Can't beat combined arms and determination.

The proposed unit classes sound pretty sensible - enough variety to be interesting but not so much as to spoil the historic feel.

Cannon should probably have a range similar to catapults or trebuchets. Cannon should hit hard enough to effectively ignore armour and you could replicate the historically very slow fire rates by giving them only one ammo, so they fire alternate turns. If too powerful, you could restrict the unit strength to say 5 or 7 or set ROF at 5 or 7 (which has a 10 strength unit firing with 5 or 7 instead of 10). That way they kill almost anything they hit, but they don't hit that much in one go - that's where ROF can be useful).

BiteNibbleChomp wrote:Someone brought up ROF for one of the units

I think that was me. I haven't yet worked out if RoF is brilliant or a real pain - I keep changing my mind on this one. WW1 was fine without it, but it could be useful for cannon as noted above.

rezaf wrote:

BiteNibbleChomp wrote:- Fighter -> Weather units (Including that storm that killed the Mongol fleets in 1274 and 1281 near Japan)

I was planning on using something like that as well - unfortunately there's a HUGE issue, namely that PzC doesn't support a "Gaia faction" that is hostile to everyone.
Hopefully one of the new games that are on their way - Rudankort's WH40k:Armageddon or Order of Battle - will support something like that (or even a greater number of factions hostile to each other or allied, depending on scenario settings).

The typhoon unit is an 'aircraft'. In the Middle Ages, their wasn't any other aircraft, so it can't be shot down.
Also, the typhoon will be part of the Jap army, so it can cause realistic devastation to your army.

*ROF: we'll see how the initial cannon tests go once I have the units.

- BNC

Prepare to conquer Byzantium!
I have also completed the list of scenarios for the campaign now:

Merkits, 1200
Betrayal, 1201
Keraits, 1203
Naimans, 1204
Western Xia, 1207
Great Wall, 1211
Zhongdu, 1215
Kara-Khitai, 1218.
Khwarezmia, 1219
Punjab, 1223
Throne Claims, 1228
Kaifeng, 1232
Xiangyang, 1235
Korea, 1239
Kiev Rus, 1240
Vladmir, 1241
Finland, 1243
Dali, 1252
Baghdad, 1258
Abbasids, 1259
Crusader States, 1260
Egypt, 1263
Linan, 1276
Japan, 1281
3rd Poland, 1287
Byzantium, 1291
Java, 1293
Holy Rome, 1295
Sweden, 1297
Western Europe, 1299

Campaign path is all scenarios except for some special conditions:

- Finland only with a great victory at Vladmir
- Egypt only with great victory at Crusader States
- Japan by choice if successful at Linan
- Byzantium only with great victory at Poland
- Holy Rome onwards only with victories at Byzantium and all following.
- Java is part of both losing and winning path.

- BNC

I am looking forward to storm the western europe

Akkula wrote:I am looking forward to storm the western europe

I cannot say I'm surprised. Is that the map you want to see next?

However, the chances of getting there are pretty low unless you win scenarios like Japan and Egypt, as well as hunt every last town in each mission. I will set the required prestige to move there extremely high.

For those who play on higher difficulties, the campaign will require 100% player prestige to be properly balanced. Which file will I need to edit to change the default difficulties to 100% player PP?

Also, on the matter of difficulties, I'm still trying to think up good names for them. Any ideas? (Sergeant, Colonel etc. aren't very suitable in Mongol times!)

- BNC

How about taking a cue from the scoring in ye old Microprose games and just use names of historical Khans?
I.e., highest difficulty is "Genghis Khan", then you have Kublai Khan, Möngke Khan etc. I'm not sure on the actual order beyond Genghis, but I'm sure Wikipedia can help.
_____
rezaf

rezaf wrote:How about taking a cue from the scoring in ye old Microprose games and just use names of historical Khans?
I.e., highest difficulty is "Genghis Khan", then you have Kublai Khan, Möngke Khan etc. I'm not sure on the actual order beyond Genghis, but I'm sure Wikipedia can help.
_____
rezaf

That's fine for the bonus difficulties, but It would make less sense for the normal ones. Also, after Genghis, Ogedei was sole Mongol leader until ~1240, after which the unified empire split. from there Kublai and Batu would be the next most important.

- BNC

The Mongol ranks were as such.

Aravt (Squad) Commander= Arban
Zuut (Company) Commander= Jagutu
Mingghan (Regiment) Commander= Minggan
Tumen (Division) Commander= Tumetu
Ordu (Horde) Commander= Khan

ducesettutamen wrote:The Mongol ranks were as such.

Aravt (Squad) Commander= Arban
Zuut (Company) Commander= Jagutu
Mingghan (Regiment) Commander= Minggan
Tumen (Division) Commander= Tumetu
Ordu (Horde) Commander= Khan

Interesting .

But, where did you find all this out? (So I have somewhere better than wiki and some video for research)

- BNC

What's wrong with wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian ... tary_ranks