Cumans

[SimonLancaster]

The Cumans could do with a little bit of help. At 1600 pts, their best units are 6 Expert Armoured Horse Archers. With the Mongols, you at least get some lancers and light lancers. The Cumans only have horse archers.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Didn't they only have horse archers?

[SimonLancaster]

Well, I don't know about historically for sure. From a gameplay perspective they are not very useful. Armies with spear and archers do a good number on them. Can't they have Tatar or some other tribe's units (like the Mongols) for a few more offensive units?

Information I am looking at online says that they lived with the Iranian Jasz people. But, maybe they used similar tactics and troops to the Cumans.

Also, the Cuman list that goes to the 14th century could perhaps have some heavier cavalry. Apparently, the Cumans used mainly light cavalry until the early 12th century. When you look at the armour and weapons of their troops at least some of them have sabres, mace and a heavy spear for lancing.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Having some lances on its own isn't enough to gain the capability; there has to be records of them actually using them outside of pursuing enemies already broken by archery. Ie, doctrine matters as much as armament in assigning capabilities

[Nosy_Rat]

Lack of dedicated lancers really drags down horse archer armies in Medieval. Huns are still the best of them.

[markleslie]

They definitely need an A-10 option!

[Athos1660]

No list is allowed to get unhistorical buff before the Ligurian 480-145BC get some love

[oscarius]

I'm fine with not all lists being created equal. Especially if we have to start bending history to make everyone equally competitive, this isn't Starcraft.

[SimonLancaster]

I'm fine with not all lists being created equal. Especially if we have to start bending history to make everyone equally competitive, this isn't Starcraft.

That is true to an extent, I think. But, I would like some posters to try out the Cumans and see how they go. To me, they don't seem remotely competitive. Only horse archers against archers and spearmen with back-up cavalry. As things stand, there is no reason to use them because the chance of a win is close to 0%, I would say. When you have a faction there should be at least some chance of winning otherwise there is no point in having them available and they are wasting space.

Okay, I am talking about multiplayer. Perhaps you could do some good single player battles/campaigns with them, I don't know. And, maybe some players can use them better than me!

[SnuggleBunnies]

But, I would like some posters to try out the Cumans and see how they go. To me, they don't seem remotely competitive.

Not all lists are, and that's always been the case in Ancients (and Pike and Shot and Sengoku Jidai) as well. I will note that some lists that are not competitive in most situations are actually well suited to taking down certain enemies.

For example, horse archer armies don't tend to be too competitive in Ancients, but the otherwise powerful Jewish Revolt army has a really tough time dealing with them.

[rbodleyscott]

The design goal of the game is historical realism, not competitive balance. Even with points systems, the two things are not completely compatible, so some armies will inevitably be better than others.

[SimonLancaster]

But, I would like some posters to try out the Cumans and see how they go. To me, they don't seem remotely competitive.

Not all lists are, and that's always been the case in Ancients (and Pike and Shot and Sengoku Jidai) as well. I will note that some lists that are not competitive in most situations are actually well suited to taking down certain enemies.

For example, horse archer armies don't tend to be too competitive in Ancients, but the otherwise powerful Jewish Revolt army has a really tough time dealing with them.

Good point. But, where is the equivalent of the Jews in Medieval!?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Good point. But, where is the equivalent of the Jews in Medieval!?

A similar army in Medieval would be Baltic Tribes. When it comes down to it though, as RBS said not every army is going to be competitive. Want changes to the army lists? Cite your sources, and perhaps changes can be made - that's how it's been done before, most recently I believe with the Polish lists.

[vaalen]

The design goal of the game is historical realism, not competitive balance. Even with points systems, the two things are not completely compatible, so some armies will inevitably be better than others.

I could not agree more with this goal.

Historically, the Cumans were horse archers. The armies of Spearmen and foot archers that can defeat them in a pitched battle could not catch them. They specialized in raids and destroying weakly defended villages. They generally avoided pitched battles, but were sometimes forced to fight them. It would be very rare for infantry to be able to fight them.

The Russians had great difficulty in dealing with horse archer armies, whose raids on villages and small towns did great damage, while avoiding battle with the big, clumsy Russian armies, Sometimes cavalry could bring them to battle, but victory was not assured, as the Cumans were more mobile and could use their misslile capacity against the Russian horsemen, who were not archers. The Russians tried various tactics, often hiring horse archer mercenaries who could keep up with the Cumans, but the problem of dealing with nomad raids was immense. The great migration to the Moskva valley was inspired mainly by a desire to get away from nomad raiders.

Perhaps there could be a cavalry only list for Russians and others who might fight Cumans. This would be more realistic.

[kronenblatt]

Good point. But, where is the equivalent of the Jews in Medieval!?

A similar army in Medieval would be Baltic Tribes. When it comes down to it though, as RBS said not every army is going to be competitive. Want changes to the army lists? Cite your sources, and perhaps changes can be made - that's how it's been done before, most recently I believe with the Polish lists.

Agree. Another suggestion is to create your own mods that make the game more to your liking. Medieval, just like Ancients, is very accessible and easy to modify, especially when it comes to army lists and unit stats.

[SimonLancaster]

Good point. But, where is the equivalent of the Jews in Medieval!?

A similar army in Medieval would be Baltic Tribes. When it comes down to it though, as RBS said not every army is going to be competitive. Want changes to the army lists? Cite your sources, and perhaps changes can be made - that's how it's been done before, most recently I believe with the Polish lists.

Agree. Another suggestion is to create your own mods that make the game more to your liking. Medieval, just like Ancients, is very accessible and easy to modify, especially when it comes to army lists and unit stats.

Right, but we are talking about historical accuracy. I think a debate can be had about the units in the base game regardless of modding. That second Cuman list goes to 1394 AD. There are Cuman heavy cavalry around with lances by that time but were they used in key engagements? Maybe not a lot of evidence, I agree.

[kronenblatt]

A similar army in Medieval would be Baltic Tribes. When it comes down to it though, as RBS said not every army is going to be competitive. Want changes to the army lists? Cite your sources, and perhaps changes can be made - that's how it's been done before, most recently I believe with the Polish lists.

Agree. Another suggestion is to create your own mods that make the game more to your liking. Medieval, just like Ancients, is very accessible and easy to modify, especially when it comes to army lists and unit stats.

Right, but we are talking about historical accuracy. I think a debate can be had about the units in the base game regardless of modding.

Of course, keep on debating. You can just view my modding suggestion as a gameplay solution to give Cumans a little bit of help, if you don't want to wait for vanilla army lists to be changed or can't find any sources to cite.