Slitherine

~1550 (16th century)
Hungary, Russia, Poland dont have keils or tercios and use large cavalry armies with some artillery and arquebus.

What is the reason for this? They didnt have armed conflict with central and western Europe?

There was plenty of armed conflict. I'm not too sure about the specific history, but most likely it was a combination of two things:

1) They lacked the institutions needed to raise large bodies of European style infantry. Poland later did raise some pike armed infantry, as did the Russians. However, both states relied heavily on levies of the nobility, and these provided cavalry.
2) Their preference for large cavalry forces may have been well suited to their native terrain. All three nations have large stretches of grassland; Russia fell under Mongol domination, and Poland and Hungary were periodically raided by them. This suggests that Poland and Hungary were the Western limit of the grasslands able to support large cavalry armies. With such large open spaces, the strategic mobility provided by cavalry was useful, and armies were less likely to be forced into head on confrontations, as in Italy. Infantry would take advantage of wagon trains, fortifications, and terrain features to protect themselves against cavalry.

In game, you see Russia and Poland starting to field some pikemen toward the end of the period; this isn't too different from some western army lists. Sweden and Denmark mostly field medieval style levies armed with halberds and crossbows early on; the French manage to hire Swiss mercenaries but their native pikemen are always poor. The English stick to the longbow and bill for the first half of the 16th century, remaining largely outside of mainstream European developments. Their early attempts to integrate result in unwieldy forces using a mix of old weapons and new. The Ottomans developed a highly successful method of warfare based on artillery, gun armed infantry, and horse archers.

Even though Western style armies would come to rule the world in the 18th century, this doesn't mean that other methods were inferior before then. Even if they were, states were often incapable of reforming their entire societies to field western armies (see the many Turkish attempts at reform). Generals worked with the armies they had, not the armies they wish they had. Still, no Western armies conquered Hungary, Poland, or Russia in the 16th century, which suggests that their military methods were at least well suited enough to local conditions to hold their own against the west.

MaxDamage wrote:What is the reason for this? They didnt have armed conflict with central and western Europe?

The Poles fought the very modern Dutch-style Swedes on numerous occassions, and their old-school cavalry proved remarkably efficient until at least mid-century.

One of the reasons for more cavalry and less artillery in the east is a lack of fortresses. Cavalry are fairly useless in sieges, which from the 1600s onwards dominated Western European Warfare. There were far more sieges than battles.

MaxDamage wrote:~1550 (16th century)
Hungary, Russia, Poland dont have keils or tercios and use large cavalry armies with some artillery and arquebus.

What is the reason for this? They didnt have armed conflict with central and western Europe?

Hungary can field a small number of mercenary kiels

To be honest both Polish and Russian roster could use some tweaking.

Although Poland indeed relied more on polish-hungarian infantry (hajduks) their infantry was (especially in later period) much more numerous and varied than the game would suggest.Let alone in Battle of Berestechko Poland deployed 10,000 pike & shot infantry, besides hajduks and dragoons. The thing that also bothers me is that hajduk infantry appeard in different variants. Some units were armed with sabres other were armed with bardiches as their secondary weapons other that also served a role of musket rests when firing. After reforms of King John III all units of polish infantry started to use bardiches as their secondary weapons.


As for Russia they also deployed on occasions truly enormous (give the period standards) amousts aod pike & shot infantry.

Well i would love to see the "mobile fortress" Gulai-Gorod type of unit for the russians which is notably mentioned in the battle of Molodi (1572).

effectively a 360 degree no flank/rear protected shot arquebus unit.
You get a couple of these and at one point during the battle you must declare them as deployed which will activate their combat abilities (like limbering/unlimbering guns).

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/thor_200 ... iginal.gif
http://zero50x.myjino.ru/allpic/15/11701-img_15.jpg

Do these move during the battle? Or only when not fighting? If the latter then it can be simulated with earthworks.
By the way, similar in tactics with Ming Chinese who had to contend with steppe horse armies too.
http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.sg/20 ... 1.html?m=1

jomni wrote:Do these move during the battle? Or only when not fighting? If the latter then it can be simulated with earthworks.
By the way, similar in tactics with Ming Chinese who had to contend with steppe horse armies too.
http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.sg/20 ... 1.html?m=1

Looks very similar! Wagon fortifications seem to be pretty popular means of protection.

Well i dont really know, i suppose that it is pretty stationary once it has been deployed. You declare it deployed and it stops moving. But you should be able to move it before. Just to choose the spot to deploy and to make sure it can take part in a battle.

But i would love to see it for any map, campaign, skirmish or multiplayer hence the need for an appropriate special unit which you have to move and then deploy once. Regardless of the map. Also 360 degree shooting : no penalty to shoot after turning once deployed.

jomni wrote:Do these move during the battle? Or only when not fighting? If the latter then it can be simulated with earthworks.
By the way, similar in tactics with Ming Chinese who had to contend with steppe horse armies too.
http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.sg/20 ... 1.html?m=1

Based on my reading of history, they were mostly stationary. It was akin to the Wagenburg tactic used by the Hussites. And although very effective for a short period, it didn't drastically change the tactics of the period.

I think for PnS purposes, the earthworks design serves well.