Slitherine

The following proposals are mainly for the Hussite Wars and to match the Heeresmatrikel(Imperial Register)of 1422 and 1431:

The current troop numbers in the 1400-1424 list almost match the numbers listed in the Imperial Register of 1422: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Heeresmatrikel_von_1422. It listed 1913 gleven(singular: gleve, the German equivalent of the lance, a knight or Man-at-Arms with 3-4 other soldiers), which means 1913 Men-at-Arms(feudal and mercenary)and 3000-8000 other soldiers, which already represented by the list.

A small number of Teutonic and Hospitaller Men-at-Arms should be added to the earlier list, three hundred Hospitallers from the Strakonice participated in the early stage of the Hussite Wars, and some of the Teutonic knights were sent to fight the Hussites too, I think add each one of them is suitable for the list. To not disrupt the general Imperial list(by using the military order Men-at-Arms to fight other enemies), I think the current 1400-1424 list should be separated into 1400-1418 and 1419-1424(the latter is specifically for the early stage of the Hussite Wars).

As for the current 1425-1449 list, I think the list should be separated into 1425-1431 and 1432-1449. In 1426, King Sigismund of Luxemburg asked the Reichstag to provide an army with 6000 gleven, but the Reichstag simply replied it was not possible, although only five years later, the Reichstag managed to raise an army with 8417 gleven, just as the Imperial Register of 1431 shows: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Heeresan ... _Reichstag, it means 8417 Men-at-Arms and 20000-30000 other soldiers, which means the number of the Men-at-Arms(feudal and mercenary)in the list needs to double(the list already had 20000-30000 other soldiers). The army was largely disbanded after the battle of Domažlice/Taus in the same year, so I think it's not suitable from 1432. For the 1432-1449 list, I think the current unit composition in the 1425-1449 list is suitable for it.

I think some allies should be added to the Imperial lists. The Bohemian Catholic and Hungarian should be added as allies to both the 1419-1424 and the 1425-1431 lists, as they fought several battles under the Imperial command. The Serbian should be added to the 1425-1431 list as an ally, as Jovan of Maroth from Serbia led thousands of Serbian troops who participated in the battle of Trnava in 1430.

Last, some Men-at-Arms(prefer to fight on foot)should be added to the Bohemian Catholic list, according to the record, at least some Men-at-Arms dismounted to fight in the battle of Sudoměře(1420), here's record of Enea Silvio Bartolomeo Piccolomini(the later Pope Pius II): "... Žižka, having left Pilsen according to that treaty, was attacked twice by loyalists and twice used a trick, he escaped as a winner, although he was almost defeated. The place on which the battle was to be fought was unfavorable, the enemy being on horseback, the soldiers all on foot, and the battle could not be fought but on foot. So as soon as the enemy was dismounted from their horses, he ordered the women who usually followed his army to gather up their harnesses on the ground, the horsemen got entangled by their spurs, and were killed before they could untangle their legs."

A small number of Teutonic and Hospitaller Men-at-Arms should be added to the earlier list, three hundred Hospitallers from the Strakonice participated in the early stage of the Hussite Wars, and some of the Teutonic knights were sent to fight the Hussites too, I think add each one of them is suitable for the list. To not disrupt the general Imperial list(by using the military order Men-at-Arms to fight other enemies), I think the current 1400-1424 list should be separated into 1400-1418 and 1419-1424(the latter is specifically for the early stage of the Hussite Wars).

The numbers in army lists are intended to be proportional to the size of the army, not based on absolute numbers. Proportionate to the overall size of the army, 300 Hospitallers is not very many. Certainly not enough to justify more than 1 unit of military order knights total.

I can justify 1 unit of military order knights maximum. As the Hospitallers appear to have been more numerous, it will have to be them. (The unit may be assumed to include some Teutonic Knights when appropriate)

Unfortunately splitting this list would require a great deal of work in numerous other files, as it affects various campaigns, allies and fortress allocations. I cannot justify the development time for the small benefit of preventing Hospitallers from appearing in an autoselected army when fighting an opponent whose list does not include the period 1419-1424.

It is not our policy to endlessly split lists to avoid such relatively unimportant anomalies.

it means 8417 Men-at-Arms and 20000-30000 other soldiers, which means the number of the Men-at-Arms(feudal and mercenary)in the list needs to double(the list already had 20000-30000 other soldiers).

No, because that isn't how army lists work. They are based on proportions rather than absolute numbers.

The total infantry numbers in the army list are inflated relative to the men-at-arms, because of the larger variety of infantry types permitted. But you can't purchase them all because you don't have enough points to do so.

The total numbers of cavalry and infantry in the lists do not have to exactly match the total proportions in the historical army, they only have to make it possible to field an army with the relevant proportions.

Taking an example of 8417 MAA and 20000-30000 other soldiers, the MAA represent a maximum of just under 30% of the army.

Taking the maximum number of men-at-arms in the current list, plus a random selection of other units, I got 40% men-at-arms.

Hence the number of permitted MAA does not need to be increased.

I think some allies should be added to the Imperial lists. The Bohemian Catholic and Hungarian should be added as allies to both the 1419-1424 and the 1425-1431 lists, as they fought several battles under the Imperial command. The Serbian should be added to the 1425-1431 list as an ally, as Jovan of Maroth from Serbia led thousands of Serbian troops who participated in the battle of Trnava in 1430.

Fair enough

Last, some Men-at-Arms(prefer to fight on foot)should be added to the Bohemian Catholic list, according to the record, at least some Men-at-Arms dismounted to fight in the battle of Sudoměře(1420)

At Sudoměře they dismounted because of the terrain, they didn't normally prefer to fight on foot. All men-at-arms can dismount already.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 9:00 am

A small number of Teutonic and Hospitaller Men-at-Arms should be added to the earlier list, three hundred Hospitallers from the Strakonice participated in the early stage of the Hussite Wars, and some of the Teutonic knights were sent to fight the Hussites too, I think add each one of them is suitable for the list. To not disrupt the general Imperial list(by using the military order Men-at-Arms to fight other enemies), I think the current 1400-1424 list should be separated into 1400-1418 and 1419-1424(the latter is specifically for the early stage of the Hussite Wars).

The numbers in army lists are intended to be proportional to the size of the army, not based on absolute numbers. Proportionate to the overall size of the army, 300 Hospitallers is not very many. Certainly not enough to justify more than 1 unit of military order knights total.

I can justify 1 unit of military order knights maximum. As the Hospitallers appear to have been more numerous, it will have to be them. (The unit may be assumed to include some Teutonic Knights when appropriate)

Unfortunately splitting this list would require a great deal of work in numerous other files, as it affects various campaigns, allies and fortress allocations. I cannot justify the development time for the small benefit of preventing Hospitallers from appearing in an autoselected army when fighting an opponent whose list does not include the period 1419-1424.

It is not our policy to endlessly split lists to avoid such relatively unimportant anomalies.

it means 8417 Men-at-Arms and 20000-30000 other soldiers, which means the number of the Men-at-Arms(feudal and mercenary)in the list needs to double(the list already had 20000-30000 other soldiers).

No, because that isn't how army lists work. They are based on proportions rather than absolute numbers.

The total infantry numbers in the army list are inflated relative to the men-at-arms, because of the larger variety of infantry types permitted. But you can't purchase them all because you don't have enough points to do so.

The total numbers of cavalry and infantry in the lists do not have to exactly match the total proportions in the historical army, they only have to make it possible to field an army with the relevant proportions.

Taking an example of 8417 MAA and 20000-30000 other soldiers, the MAA represent a maximum of just under 30% of the army.

Taking the maximum number of men-at-arms in the current list, plus a random selection of other units, I got 40% men-at-arms.

Hence the number of permitted MAA does not need to be increased.

I think being too sticky to proportions rather than actual numbers is not always a good idea. As we both know, the player can't take all units in the list because the game doesn't provide enough points to do so, and the player can freely select the units as he wants, which makes the system almost meaningless.

For example, If the player purchases the infantry mainly rather than Men-at-Arms when he's playing the French(same as the AI-controlled French), or purchases maximum numbers of Men-at-Arms when he's playing the Late HYW English, which means 5 mounted and 12 dismounted, and only purchase 11 longbowmen by using the rest of the points, it will break the historical proportion of the army at last. Most of the HYW English army's Men-at-Arms-longbowmen proportion is 1:3 or in some circumstances, higher(the English army at Verneuil had 1800 Men-at-Arms and 8000-9000 longbowmen and had 2221 Men-at-Arms and 7794 longbowmen in Normandy several years before, the army of John of Gaunt just before he launched the chevauchée had 3000 Men-at-Arms and 8000-15000 longbowmen). After all, it does not always reflect the composition of the historical army correctly when comes to deployment.

The actual number of units that can be deployed by the army is more important, as the total proportion system doesn't work as well as expected.

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 3:40 pm I think being too sticky to proportions rather than actual numbers is not always a good idea. As we both know, the player can't take all units in the list because the game doesn't provide enough points to do so, and the player can freely select the units as he wants, which makes the system almost meaningless.

For example, If the player purchases the infantry mainly rather than Men-at-Arms when he's playing the French(same as the AI-controlled French), or purchases maximum numbers of Men-at-Arms when he's playing the Late HYW English, which means 5 mounted and 12 dismounted, and only purchase 11 longbowmen by using the rest of the points, it will break the historical proportion of the army at last. Most of the HYW English army's Men-at-Arms-longbowmen proportion is 1:3 or in some circumstances, higher(the English army at Verneuil had 1800 Men-at-Arms and 8000-9000 longbowmen and had 2221 Men-at-Arms and 7794 longbowmen in Normandy several years before, the army of John of Gaunt just before he launched the chevauchée had 3000 Men-at-Arms and 8000-15000 longbowmen). After all, it does not always reflect the composition of the historical army correctly when comes to deployment.

The actual number of units that can be deployed by the army is more important, as the total proportion system doesn't work as well as expected.

It is not perfect, of course, but we prefer it to the alternative.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 4:04 pm

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 3:40 pm I think being too sticky to proportions rather than actual numbers is not always a good idea. As we both know, the player can't take all units in the list because the game doesn't provide enough points to do so, and the player can freely select the units as he wants, which makes the system almost meaningless.

For example, If the player purchases the infantry mainly rather than Men-at-Arms when he's playing the French(same as the AI-controlled French), or purchases maximum numbers of Men-at-Arms when he's playing the Late HYW English, which means 5 mounted and 12 dismounted, and only purchase 11 longbowmen by using the rest of the points, it will break the historical proportion of the army at last. Most of the HYW English army's Men-at-Arms-longbowmen proportion is 1:3 or in some circumstances, higher(the English army at Verneuil had 1800 Men-at-Arms and 8000-9000 longbowmen and had 2221 Men-at-Arms and 7794 longbowmen in Normandy several years before, the army of John of Gaunt just before he launched the chevauchée had 3000 Men-at-Arms and 8000-15000 longbowmen). After all, it does not always reflect the composition of the historical army correctly when comes to deployment.

The actual number of units that can be deployed by the army is more important, as the total proportion system doesn't work as well as expected.

It is not perfect, of course, but we prefer it to the alternative.

I think we can strike a balance of it instead of being too partial to this or another.

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 5:29 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 4:04 pm It is not perfect, of course, but we prefer it to the alternative.

I think we can strike a balance of it instead of being too partial to this or another.

I don't see the current system being particularly skewed one way or another. Rounding of the available number of units already tends to favours more rather than fever units when the relative numbers are low.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 12:12 am

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 5:29 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 4:04 pm It is not perfect, of course, but we prefer it to the alternative.

I think we can strike a balance of it instead of being too partial to this or another.

I don't see the current system being particularly skewed one way or another. Rounding of the available number of units already tends to favours more rather than fever units when the relative numbers are low.

The current system only works well under the setting of medium and below-sized battles, according to the reasons above, and other examples I didn't have listed. A more compromised way is to add more number of permitted specific units to match the total proportions of the historical army under the setting of large and above-sized battles, which is more common than before in the late Middle Ages.

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 9:36 am The current system only works well under the setting of medium and below-sized battles, according to the reasons above, and other examples I didn't have listed. A more compromised way is to add more number of permitted specific units to match the total proportions of the historical army under the setting of large and above-sized battles, which is more common than before in the late Middle Ages.

The minima and maxima of each unit presented are already automatically scaled to the size of the battle.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 9:52 am

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 9:36 am The current system only works well under the setting of medium and below-sized battles, according to the reasons above, and other examples I didn't have listed. A more compromised way is to add more number of permitted specific units to match the total proportions of the historical army under the setting of large and above-sized battles, which is more common than before in the late Middle Ages.

The minima and maxima of each unit presented are already automatically scaled to the size of the battle.

That's another compromised way, though. Is it technically possible to increase the maximum force point limits like the P&S?

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 3:43 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 9:52 am

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 9:36 am The current system only works well under the setting of medium and below-sized battles, according to the reasons above, and other examples I didn't have listed. A more compromised way is to add more number of permitted specific units to match the total proportions of the historical army under the setting of large and above-sized battles, which is more common than before in the late Middle Ages.

The minima and maxima of each unit presented are already automatically scaled to the size of the battle.

That's another compromised way, though. Is it technically possible to increase the maximum force point limits like the P&S?

If you mean the overall total, then it could be modded to allow larger forces.