Slitherine

1. I'm fairly intrigued by the "Mounted Handgunner" unit. I wasn't able to find any convincing source for their existance in this period. The only thing I was able to find are sporadic (and uncited) mentions of "petronel cavalry", usually dated to the first decade of the 16th century. Could anyone point me towards recent academic articles or period primary sources on the subject?

2. There should be a generic "Italian Condotta" list/lists in the XV century, such that specific major italian lists (papal, venice, etc.) become improvements of that basic list. The same already happens for XIV century lists, where the ghibelline/guelf list is the basic italian list, while the various state lists add additional units on top of it. The new generic XV century list could represent minor states or important noble families (Gonzaga, Estensi, Malatesta, da Montefeltro, etc.)
For reference, to create this list just remove mounted handgunners and armoured spearmen from the papal states list.

3. A while ago (and by a while I mean 2019) rbodleyscott posted a points value table (used to calculate a unit's cost based on capabilities and other stats) in a FoG2 thread. Does anyone have an up to date table?

4. Now, this is a bit of a stretch (given the amount of work required) but I strongly advocate that the Late models for Maa be introduced in every list starting from 1430 AD (readjusting split lists to have the correct date), without delaying their introduction to list geographically distant from italy/sout-west europe. Not only this is appropriate in a material sense (as this is roughly the date when the characteristic XV century harness becomes prevalent), but also it eliminates those jarring situations where contemporary lists (eg. 1450 german imperial list vs 1450 polish list, or even venice vs byzantine (morea) list (where the mercenary maa are supposed to be italians)), use wildly different maa models without reason. We can also assume that late Maa also includes armour of the english and kastenbrust styles from 1430 to 1450.

5. At last, can we get a port of Zombie mod from ZoG2 to medieval. That mod is currently broken in modern versions of FoG2 (I believe this is because it was made before Swifter than Eagles, where split melee/archer units where introduced; the game launches an exception trying to use a function that is not present in the mod files).

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 10:13 am 1. I'm fairly intrigued by the "Mounted Handgunner" unit. I wasn't able to find any convincing source for their existance in this period. The only thing I was able to find are sporadic (and uncited) mentions of "petronel cavalry", usually dated to the first decade of the 16th century. Could anyone point me towards recent academic articles or period primary sources on the subject?

See Armies of the Middle Ages Volume 1 by Ian Heath.

"Athos" was also able to provide contemporary evidence of existence in the French army on this forum, albeit in a closed beta subforum.

Having a whole unit of them is, of course, pushing it at the normal representational scales.

2. There should be a generic "Italian Condotta" list/lists in the XV century, such that specific major italian lists (papal, venice, etc.) become improvements of that basic list. The same already happens for XIV century lists, where the ghibelline/guelf list is the basic italian list, while the various state lists add additional units on top of it. The new generic XV century list could represent minor states or important noble families (Gonzaga, Estensi, Malatesta, da Montefeltro, etc.)
For reference, to create this list just remove mounted handgunners and armoured spearmen from the papal states list.

Arguably, though we felt that by the 15th century the remaining minor states were insignificant as military powers compared with the 14th century. Which is why we did not make a list.

3. A while ago (and by a while I mean 2019) rbodleyscott posted a points value table (used to calculate a unit's cost based on capabilities and other stats) in a FoG2 thread. Does anyone have an up to date table?

4. Now, this is a bit of a stretch (given the amount of work required) but I strongly advocate that the Late models for Maa be introduced in every list starting from 1430 AD (readjusting split lists to have the correct date), without delaying their introduction to list geographically distant from italy/sout-west europe. Not only this is appropriate in a material sense (as this is roughly the date when the characteristic XV century harness becomes prevalent), but also it eliminates those jarring situations where contemporary lists (eg. 1450 german imperial list vs 1450 polish list, or even venice vs byzantine (morea) list (where the mercenary maa are supposed to be italians)), use wildly different maa models without reason. We can also assume that late Maa also includes armour of the english and kastenbrust styles from 1430 to 1450.

We took the view that the new armours were expensive and it would take a couple of decades for the majority of men-at-arms to re-equip, especially further away from the epicentres of innovative armour manufacture.

5. At last, can we get a port of Zombie mod from ZoG2 to medieval. That mod is currently broken in modern versions of FoG2 (I believe this is because it was made before Swifter than Eagles, where split melee/archer units where introduced; the game launches an exception trying to use a function that is not present in the mod files).

jomni, the author, no longer seems to be active in this forum. So, it would require someone else to take it upon themself to update and mod the mod.

Many thanks!

Regarding the first question, I think I tracked down the earliest secondary source used by Ian Heath. The italian wikipedia page of Camillo Vitelli recounts his innovative use of mounted hangunners ("archibugeri a cavallo", literally "arquebusiers on horseback") to defeat a 700 strong german infantry force in 1495. This incident is narrated in the second volume of "Storia delle compagnie di ventura in Italia" by Ercole Ricotti, published in 1847 (red flag, see below). Specifically one must look at Volume II, Part V, Second Chapter, Section IV (page 311 in the copy I used).

For reference, the entirity of Ricotti's work can be found in archive.org
Volume 1: https://archive.org/details/storiadellecomp06ricogoog
Volume 2: https://archive.org/details/storiadellecomp04ricogoog
Using the second link, the incident is to be found in page 334 of 844.

Ricotti notes the following:
(1) Pauli Jovii, Elogia, 1. IV. 290. — Giovio, Ist. IV. 2714.— Domenichi , Fita ms. di Vitello Vitelli, Gli Arquebutes à cheval, di cui parla il Comines (.Mém. |. VIM. oh. XIV. p. 153. ap. Petitot ) nel racconto della spedizione di Carlo viii, erano archibugi da cavalletto, e non archibugieri a cavallo, come malamente tradusse Lorenzo Conti. Furono bensì scoppiettieri a cavallo quelli mandati nel 1497 dal senato di Venezia alla guerra di Pisa (P. Bembi, Mist. I. TV. f. 51. Venet. 1551). Nel 1502 tra i cavalleggieri del duca Valentino eranvi 40 scoppiettieri (Machiav. Legaz. al Valent. lett. XV. p. 613). Più tardi questa milizia fu rinnovata da Giovanni de Medici, e quindi recata in Francia da Pietro Strozzi.

Translation (by me):
(1) Pauli Jovii, Elogia, 1. IV. 290. — Giovio, Ist. IV. 2714.— Domenichi , Fita ms. di Vitello Vitelli, The "Arquebutes à cheval" Comines speaks about (.Mém. |. VIM. oh. XIV. p. 153. ap. Petitot ) while recounting Charles VIII's expedition were arquebuses with stands, not mounted handgunners, as wrongly translated by Lorenzo Conti. Instead, those sent by the venician senate against Pisa in 1497 were indeed mounted gunners (P. Bembi, Mist. I. TV. f. 51. Venet. 1551). In 1502, there were 40 gunners amongst the light cavalry of Cesare Borgia [duca Valentino]. This militia was later renewed by Giovanni de Medici, and thus sent to France by Pietro Strozzi.

As to why I would be mindful about Ricotti's work:
- There's a fair chance his work is largely outdated (although I have yet to read waht the modern academic consensus is).
- He wrote during the Risorgimento, moreover this volumes were directly dedicated to king Carlo Alberto. I would expect some embellishments in the name of patriotism.

The primary sources are perhaps a bit more in our favor. Indeed, we have two contemporary sources: Philippe de Commines (Comines) and Pietro Bembo (P. Bembi). As stated above, Commines does not speak of mounted gunners: a bit suspect, since the army of Charles VIII, under which Vitelli fought, is one of his main topics (assuming of course, as Ricotti did, that Lorenzo Conti's translation is incorrect). As for Bembo, Ricotti cites Bembo's Istoria Viniziana (published ca. 1550). The only (minor) points of skepticism I can raise against it are the following: 1. In 1497 Bembo was in Ferrara, were he remained until 1499. He could have heard distorted news of the forces sent by Venice. 2. Writing sometimes later, Bembo could have misremebered (or, with a lack of sources, outright made up) the composition of forces sent by Venice.
Note that I have yet to find the exact passage on the Istoria Viniziana (luckily, it can be found in google books). As for the gunners of Cesare Borgia I have no clue.

In the light of this, I would suggest not to remove the unit from the game, but at least restrict it to the 1490-1500 period (perhaps earlier for the french, although the reported use of mounted handgunners by charles VII in 1449 should be verified). Surely, it is a bit anachronistic to see Papal armies field mounted handgunners in 1440!

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 6:40 am

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 10:13 am 1. I'm fairly intrigued by the "Mounted Handgunner" unit. I wasn't able to find any convincing source for their existance in this period. The only thing I was able to find are sporadic (and uncited) mentions of "petronel cavalry", usually dated to the first decade of the 16th century. Could anyone point me towards recent academic articles or period primary sources on the subject?

2. There should be a generic "Italian Condotta" list/lists in the XV century, such that specific major italian lists (papal, venice, etc.) become improvements of that basic list. The same already happens for XIV century lists, where the ghibelline/guelf list is the basic italian list, while the various state lists add additional units on top of it. The new generic XV century list could represent minor states or important noble families (Gonzaga, Estensi, Malatesta, da Montefeltro, etc.)
For reference, to create this list just remove mounted handgunners and armoured spearmen from the papal states list.

Arguably, though we felt that by the 15th century the remaining minor states were insignificant as military powers compared with the 14th century. Which is why we did not make a list.

I think we do need general Condotta Italian lists for the 15th century, to cover the armies of the Duchy of Ferrara, Marquisate of Mantua, Republic of Lucca, Republic of Siena, Duchy of Savoy, March of Montferrat etc. Though they seem to be minor states when compared to the others, they did participate in some wars, like the Wars in Lombardy, War of Ferrara, War of Padua, First Scutari War etc.

And in the Field of Glory tabletop rulebook there's a general Condotta Italian list:

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 6:40 am

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 10:13 am 1. I'm fairly intrigued by the "Mounted Handgunner" unit. I wasn't able to find any convincing source for their existance in this period. The only thing I was able to find are sporadic (and uncited) mentions of "petronel cavalry", usually dated to the first decade of the 16th century. Could anyone point me towards recent academic articles or period primary sources on the subject?

4. Now, this is a bit of a stretch (given the amount of work required) but I strongly advocate that the Late models for Maa be introduced in every list starting from 1430 AD (readjusting split lists to have the correct date), without delaying their introduction to list geographically distant from italy/sout-west europe. Not only this is appropriate in a material sense (as this is roughly the date when the characteristic XV century harness becomes prevalent), but also it eliminates those jarring situations where contemporary lists (eg. 1450 german imperial list vs 1450 polish list, or even venice vs byzantine (morea) list (where the mercenary maa are supposed to be italians)), use wildly different maa models without reason. We can also assume that late Maa also includes armour of the english and kastenbrust styles from 1430 to 1450.

We took the view that the new armours were expensive and it would take a couple of decades for the majority of men-at-arms to re-equip, especially further away from the epicentres of innovative armour manufacture.

I think both of the Continental and Homeland English 1450-1454 lists need to upgrade their Men-at-Arms' models to the newer ones. At least no later than the 1440s, the English nobles started to acquire new armours from the continental, such as Sir John Cressy bought a harness from Milan in 1441, and Richard Beauchamp, who was much earlier, sent an effigy of himself with his second-best clothes to Milan, to buy a harness which was fitted for him etc.

Also, the contemporary artworks had shown such changes clearly:
https://effigiesandbrasses.com/1781/2815
https://effigiesandbrasses.com/1588/1953
https://effigiesandbrasses.com/1586/2191

Update: I skimmed through the Istoria Viniziana, and found many interisting anecdotes. I shall recount each finding book by book.

BOOK I
- During the battle of Fornovo, 400 french mounted crossbowmen fought dismounted in a mixed formation with the swiss infantry.

BOOK II
- 150 mounted crossbowmen were under french command near Genoa.
- Bembo mentions how 700 german infantry were defeated by the French, however he does not specify neither how they were defeated nor by which commander. This incident seems the one attributed to Vitelli by Ricotti (without any proof of Vitelli's involvement).
The Extract in question: <<[...] mosso accio spetialmente per cagione che i Francesi haveano in tra presi e male trattati settecento fanti Tedeschi, i quali erano stati fatti nelle alpi sopra Trento, e allui venivano>>.
Translation: "[...] he had thus deliberated [to remain in the defensive?] since the French had taken prisoner and beaten 700 German infantrymen, which were recruited in the alps above Trento, and against him they [the French] came".
- During a naval engament, the venetian galleys were at a disadvantage. The enemy fought from ships with higher decks, also they threw pitch grenades at the venicians, setting some of their galleys ablaze. Finally, the galleys were bombarded by a bigger vessel ("nave grossa").

BOOK III
- Florence recruits 300 mounted crossbowmen to counter the venetian stradiots, and prevent their raids.
- Bembo directly mentions mounted handgunners! The venetian senate sends mounted handgunners (cavalli con li scoppietti) and other stradiots to overwhelm the aformentioned florentine mounted crossbowen. This seems to be the force sent in 1497, as told by Ricotti.
The Extract: <<Et dalloro esercito furono presi cento fanti Venezian e spogliati delle loro arme: e da medesimi fiorentini assoldati trecento balestrieri a cavallo, per contrapporli alli stradiotti: i quali i loro impeti ripressero assai. Per la qual cagione furono dal Senato mandati cavalli con li scoppietti; e altri stradiotti ancora>>.
Translation: "And by their [the Florentine's] army 100 venetian infantrymen were captured and deprived of their weapons: and by the florentines 300 mounted crossbowmen were recruited, to counter the stradiotti: they [the stradiotti] had resumed to greatly indulge in their nature [of pillagers]. For this reason, the [venetian] Senate sent "horses with handguns" and other stradiots".

Now then, if Bembo was correct all along, it would mean that the later Venecian list should be eligible to gain mounted handgunners as a unit.

Although, coming to think about it: what would happen if mounted handgunners were made to be a Light Horse unit? Surely, this will alleviate the "numbers problem", leading to a more belivable simulation. In terms of gameplay balance, I can see this being a buff, for the unit will be able to gain better opportunities to shoot and be dominant in melee against other light units, but on the other hand it could become the most expensive light unit in the game, severely limiting its usefulness.

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 10:13 am 5. At last, can we get a port of Zombie mod from ZoG2 to medieval. That mod is currently broken in modern versions of FoG2 (I believe this is because it was made before Swifter than Eagles, where split melee/archer units where introduced; the game launches an exception trying to use a function that is not present in the mod files).

Zombie mod has just gone on to Medieval. Someone else took over. I think info is on FoG 2 Discord.

Zombie mod has just gone on to Medieval. Someone else took over. I think info is on FoG 2 Discord.

Well, that's awkward. I've recently posted a FoGZ port for Medieval including all the army lists of Time Warp. It's on the modding subforum of this page.

Now, unto more questions / requests.

1. The Oarsmen's model should be changed, replaced or otherwise altered. One of the fundamental aspects of FoG2, as explained by Patrick Ward on the recent FoGA post, it that a unit's overall strenght / quality can be recognized at a glance. Now, despite looking identical to Brigands, Oarsmen are vastly inferior in terms of melee PoA.
I propose the following solutions:
- Change the unit's texture to have the typical raw unit colours (eg. a brown buckler, a dirtier or otherwise paler gambeson, or remove the gambeson all together).
- Replace the unit's model with the FoGA ancient Mob model. The latter is pretty generic, and sailors often were scantly clad and shoeless to gain a better grip on wet surfaces.
- Similar to the above, in that the FoGA Mob model is used, but these models are used alongside the Brigands models. A single unit would show a mix of the two (say, for example, 6 brigands and 2 FoGA Mobs randomly placed in the same unit). I doubt the engine could even handle such a thing.

2. I assume that the Brigand units in the later italian lists represent what the sources call "Cernita". If this is case, I find it rather a poor abstraction of what Cernita were. My proposal is to replace the current Brigand units in every north italian list from 1300 with a "Cernita Foot" unit: basically a close fighter unit (protected, light spear, full swordsmen) with the medieval irregular foot model (although if given an helmet, say akin to the Rodelero head, it would be perfect).
Arguments in favour of this change:
- Cernite were the only milita unit (other than crossbowmen) that were regularly recruited in condottieri armies, which were otherwise exclusively composed of professionals. This speaks of their perceived quality.
- Cernite equipment is described in detail by primary sources: they were armed with round shields (targa), helmets, sidearms (swords or daggers), and spears which could be used for throwing. They were otherwise unarmoured.
- Not only they were able to resist the enemy charge when on the defensive, they are also said to have widely been employed in an assaults against enemies in rough terrain. Both of this cases suggest some inherit strenght in the charge or when receiving one.
Arguments against:
- Swordsmen, as all capabilities, does not represent the actual armament of the unit. Brigand units are assumed to be armed with a mix of swords & bucklers, spears and two handed weapons (such are spiked clubs, mauls and axes).

3. Another tall order, but since it can be quite a pain to set up custom scenarios, I beleive some customizations could be included in custom battle options. I understand that changing the UI to include buttons or other elements to select this options is quite labour intensive.
The options is question:
- Toggle the random size of units. When this option in not toggled, the unit while spawn without size variation.
- Toggle the army size modifier. When this option in not toggled, the 1 model = 60 men ratio is always used, irrespective of the armies in the field. An even better solution would be to allow the player to choose the model/men ratio.
- Add the "flat field" (blank board, as seen in scenario creation) to the map selection. This map should not appear when the map is randomly selected.
- Add a way for players to manually set the points to be used for each side, irrespective of difficulty.


I have also something to say for Time Warp / FoGA. This are relative minor, such that another post in the FoGA would be inappropriate.

1. There are two Ligurian lists in Time Warp; one is using the generic Irregular foot unit while the other uses the ligurian foot unit from the tt mod. I can only assume this is a left over, unless players where complaining about the new models.

2. I find the berseker UI to be misleading. Although they are described as being Average in size, a berserker unit is 3 models worth of men away from being truly average, whilst it is only 1 model away from being small! This has massive implications for the unit's strenght in melee (which the unit's cost rightly portrays). the UI should read either "Small" or "Below Average" for size. While at it, why not change the unit's name to a more authentic "Berserkir/Ulfhednar"?

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2024 10:07 am
- Similar to the above, in that the FoGA Mob model is used, but these models are used alongside the Brigands models. A single unit would show a mix of the two (say, for example, 6 brigands and 2 FoGA Mobs randomly placed in the same unit). I doubt the engine could even handle such a thing.

Yes, that is correct. The engine cannot handle using two different models in the same unit.

Where you see two (or more) different men in units (ie; the Burgundian Pike/Longbows, later medieval Knights, Scandinavian Foot etc), that is only possible because the model has been designed from the outset to represent more than one differently armed men.

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2024 10:07 am
1. There are two Ligurian lists in Time Warp; one is using the generic Irregular foot unit while the other uses the ligurian foot unit from the tt mod. I can only assume this is a left over, unless players where complaining about the new models.

How this came about is a very complicated story!

But basically the list that has the generic Irregular foot is designed only to be used in campaigns where generic mountain tribe units are needed as allies. It does not show up in the list of available armies that can be selected by the player. Think of it as the Mountain Tribe list.

Only the list with the TT mod Ligurian Foot model is the real Ligurian army, and can be selected by the player.

How this came about is a very complicated story!

But basically the list that has the generic Irregular foot is designed only to be used in campaigns where generic mountain tribe units are needed as allies. It does not show up in the list of available armies that can be selected by the player. Think of it as the Mountain Tribe list.

Only the list with the TT mod Ligurian Foot model is the real Ligurian army, and can be selected by the player.

Fascinating stuff! You can actually get the two ligurian lists side by side in game by simply launching the time warp module and removing both the time period and geography constraints. Perhaps it would be better to rename that list?

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2024 12:46 pm

How this came about is a very complicated story!

But basically the list that has the generic Irregular foot is designed only to be used in campaigns where generic mountain tribe units are needed as allies. It does not show up in the list of available armies that can be selected by the player. Think of it as the Mountain Tribe list.

Only the list with the TT mod Ligurian Foot model is the real Ligurian army, and can be selected by the player.

Fascinating stuff! You can actually get the two ligurian lists side by side in game by simply launching the time warp module and removing both the time period and geography constraints. Perhaps it would be better to rename that list?

Good spot. I don't know if Richard can do anything to prevent that happening, so maybe renaming it to "Mountain Tribes" might be the best option.

Truly, if we're going to change them to Mountain Tribes, giving the list a core of medium foot unprotected axemen (to represent warriors armed with the alpine hellebardenaxt) would make for a perfect Reti/Euganei list! After all, the romans managed to subdue them only in 15 BC.

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2024 10:07 am - Add a way for players to manually set the points to be used for each side, irrespective of difficulty.

This is more or less present already. At the lowest difficulty, the player gets a slight bonus to unit quality. At the highest, the AI. Otherwise, all difficulty does is change the # of points available to each side. 'Advanced Options' while setting up a scenario allows you to give each side exactly as many points as you want.

'Advanced Options' while setting up a scenario allows you to give each side exactly as many points as you want.

It seems that I have made a fool out of myself... Speaking of options, is there a way (either in game or some coding trick) to save custom battle options (map type, battle type, etc)? As someone who tries the same scenario multiple times, it's rather tedious to input everything again manually.

It seems that I have made a fool out of myself... Speaking of options, is there a way (either in game or some coding trick) to save custom battle options (map type, battle type, etc)? As someone who tries the same scenario multiple times, it's rather tedious to input everything again manually.

It keeps the settings after you have used them, until you change them or exit the game I think.

It keeps the settings after you have used them, until you change them or exit the game I think.

This isn't the case when you finish a custom battle. After the end screen, the game drops you into another menù, forcing you to re-enter in the custom battle screen and set up again.

At any rate, I found another couple of bugs in Time Warp:
1. Both when choosing the player army and when choosing the enemy army two identical Pecheneg 850-1122 AD lists appear.
2. All the ancients Lombard lists seem to be using the wrong banner (red banner with the star of David instead of the barbarian "boar" banner). ADDENDUM: Just went into a game against enemy vikings. Again they use the red banner as described above. Only enemies seem to use that banner, whilst player armies use the correct boar banner.

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 11:09 am
At any rate, I found another couple of bugs in Time Warp:
1. Both when choosing the player army and when choosing the enemy army two identical Pecheneg 850-1122 AD lists appear.

That's because there is the same Pecheneg list in both the Medieval and Ancients games. When you combine the two lists you get two Pecheneg armies. It could be fixed; the devs could either delete one of the armies from the Time warp list, or give different date ranges for the two lists (850 to 1049 for the ancient army, and 1050 to 1122 for the medieval).

colleonimancanti wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2024 11:09 am
2. All the ancients Lombard lists seem to be using the wrong banner (red banner with the star of David instead of the barbarian "boar" banner). ADDENDUM: Just went into a game against enemy vikings. Again they use the red banner as described above. Only enemies seem to use that banner, whilst player armies use the correct boar banner.

That's the Medieval banner rules kicking in. When two armies have the same colour flags, the side1 (ie; the AI army in single player games) gets to use an alternative banner (in this case the dull red banner with the star etc) so that the two sides can be easily distinguished.

It's happening in this case because the Vikings have a yellow banner. If you played against the Lombards with an army that uses a non yellow banner, it wouldn't happen. Try the Romans, Hungarians or Wallachians for example.

It's strange that it happens in Time Warp even if you have historical banners turned on (in Settings), maybe that is where there is an issue.