login

Author Topic: Tweaking troops  (Read 35265 times)

Sparehawk

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2008, 01:04:10 PM »
Question:

The Northern Recruit - possible to upgrade to either Footman (level 10) or archer (level 14) - does that upgrade properly?  Does it give both upgrade options at the same time, or does the first one to appear overwrite the other?  Because I've never seen an upgrade done that way, with options of dissimilar levels, and I sort of suspect that there might be a reason.

Good question. Need to check.

Sparehawk

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2008, 01:39:29 PM »
My main question, however, is what is the actual troop system you'll be using for the next version? This is the troop system for the current release of the mod, but what of the next one?

It's a system from version 0.4.2.
I wanna change it to something like what I've described in first post in this topic. With latest remarks, of course.

I assume, basic part for lowborn (except iron isles troops) could be like this:


That is a tree for player's troops. Kingdoms will have a copies of units from this tree, with colored coats. If player will obtain any kingdom's unit under his command, that unit will be converted to it's base version.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 02:03:34 PM by Sparehawk »

Agent Griff

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2008, 01:46:32 PM »
So, um, no knights? How can a player get knights in his party then? I suppose there are knights in the game world, just that they are harder to recruit, right?

Sparehawk

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2008, 02:02:32 PM »
So, um, no knights? How can a player get knights in his party then? I suppose there are knights in the game world, just that they are harder to recruit, right?

It's a tree for lowborn - peasants, militia, that could be hired in villages.
There also will be separate trees for mercenaries (quite good warriors, but not cheap; could be hired in taverns) and nobles (almost as good as mercenaries, maybe even a bit better and not so expensive; could be hired in castles, owned by player - or from prisoners, but that will require good charisma)

Jheral

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2008, 02:47:11 PM »
It's a system from version 0.4.2.
I wanna change it to something like what I've described in first post in this topic. With latest remarks, of course.

I assume, basic part for lowborn (except iron isles troops) could be like this:


That is a tree for player's troops. Kingdoms will have a copies of units from this tree, with colored coats. If player will obtain any kingdom's unit under his command, that unit will be converted to it's base version.

That looks very good, actually. Perhaps a bit more powerful than I'd hoped for 'lowborn' troops, but I still like it. What are your plans for the ironborn?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 02:52:34 PM by Jheral »

Nahadiel

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2008, 03:52:24 PM »
Seems nice. Just a couple of question about Northmen. They don't have skirmishers, so no bow/crossbowmen, is that intended? And shouldn't be man-at-atms a common lvl 25 unit instead a special North unit? It is just a matter of names, I like the tree.

ser Jeekim

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2008, 03:53:23 PM »

Jheral

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2008, 11:20:23 PM »
Actually, transition spearman -->mounted archer seems strange as well. I would propose, that Dorne would have mtd archer as upgrade from skirmisher instead of either crossbowman or archer; and from spearman alternative upgrades horseman and infantry.

I'd say that they should branch off from Dornish Horseman or Archer (or both. OnR has this on some of their troops; different upgrade paths to the same troop type).

I guess the idea was to make them exclusive to Dorne, but keep the troop tree to only 4 tiers for all branches.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2008, 11:45:22 PM by Jheral »

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2008, 11:28:15 PM »
Archers and crossbows can stay different trees, for two good reasons.  One is logical - they are very different skills, and it is highly unlikely that one would want to change to the other.  Two, once the RCM stats are ready (hopefully tomorrow), the two are very different weapons - the crossbows being anti-armor, and the longbows being more general-purpose.

Sparehawk

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2008, 03:26:54 AM »

There will be some of distinction in armies' composition of different kingdoms. Not every kingdom's army will have all available troops types. For example, I assume that there will be very a few (or even will be not at all) crossbowmen in Stark's army. But it's not mean, that player can't teach his northern recruits to use crossbow. As I've wrote before, it's a question of politic and economic, not of culture. IMHO.

Also, I see with pity that Dorne would no more get heavy infantry... sniff. Those Sarges are pretty cool... :(

Well, I'm not an expert on middle-ages history, but my experience from a lot of role-playing games says me, that southern desert country like Dorne shouldn't have a heavy infantry. And as it was already mentioned here, in books dornishmen are more concentrated on hit-and-run tactics, using high mobile troops, ranged weapons and light armor.

Maybe, Ron can say - if Dorne was copied from arab/muslim countries of real history, which main troops types it should have?

Actually, transition spearman -->mounted archer seems strange as well. I would propose, that Dorne would have mtd archer as upgrade from skirmisher instead of either crossbowman or archer; and from spearman alternative upgrades horseman and infantry.

Just my small idea.

Well, since dornish spearmen was plotted to have both melee spear and throwing spears, I assume that dornish militia has no need to be upgraded to scirmishers. So, from dornish spearman there will be upgrade choices to crossbowman and dornish horseman, who also using both melee weapons and throwing spears.
From dornish horseman will be upgrade choices to mounted archers and traditional heavy horseman.

Remark: Just to avoid misunderstanding, want to remind, that heavy horseman isn't wear plate armor. He wear mail. Light horseman wears leather.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2008, 09:33:18 AM by Sparehawk »

shevchenko65

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2008, 09:12:20 AM »
You're right about no heavy infantry in Dorne Sparehawk. It was mentioned in the book, by Area Hotah, that anyone in heavy armor would cook in the sun.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2008, 09:58:27 AM »
If they're modeled after the real Middle East ... well, that could be anything. 

Nubian and other African spearmen were normally light or no armor, usually just spear and shield.  Egypt tried a little harder to armor their troops, but for most of their history, the infantry was mostly light.

While the Mamluk (Saracen, and later several Dynasties in Egypt) were primarily medium horse archers, it would certainly be inaccurate to call their armor light.  They were hit-and-run horse archers, true, but not light.  Same with the Ghulam (warrior-slaves of the Islamic caliphates) - they tended toward heavy lamellar armors and battle axes.  (Many who read about the Crusades period fail to realize that the elite of the Saracens were actually more heavily equipped than their European counterparts.)

On the far extreme were the Persian and Armenian "cataphract" horse.  They were extremely heavily armored, both man and horse ... and while they fell out of use about the time of the Crusades (for unknown reasons, probably economic), they ate alive just about every army they encountered before that, even giving the Legions of Rome the fight of their lives.  However, they were not the backbone of the Persian army - the bulk of the Persians were based around lighter horse archers and light spearmen.  But they weren't something you really needed a whole lot of ... like war elephants, just a few would get just about any enemy commander's undivided attention.

So while the pattern of the Middle East was Asiatic, in the sense of encouraging mobility over durability, it was not a fixed rule nor was the concept uniformly applied.  The idea that all Arab fighters went out there in silk shirts is a myth... many were wearing 60 pounds of very sturdy lamellar armor.

The myth probably got started by observing seagoing pirates.  North Africa has been producing pirates forever, and obviously many sailors tend to be nervous about wearing armor, as it gets real hard to swim if you fall in the ocean.  How the idea of Barbary Coast pirates got expanded to include stories about land-based armies is a mystery.  (Oddly enough, the Japanese navy of this time refused to give up their armor, and just tied themselves to the boat with safety lines.... but that was not so popular in Europe/Africa either.)

However, it is a myth that many fiction writers continue to play upon (because people expect it, and it seems to make sense) ... so just because history won't back that up, don't assume that applies to the novels in question.

But as for temperature control, any armor (leather, steel, or whatever) and probably even unarmored people are going to need a light-colored tabbard or heavy robe of an insulative material (wool is good) to keep the sun off.  The desert sun will cook you, I promise.  (I'm sitting in Xi'an, half way between the Gobi and the Takla Makan - and I don't go out in the summer without a hat.)  But it will cook you no matter what armor you do or do not wear.

Nahadiel

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2008, 12:57:15 PM »
Muslim armies that invaded Iberic Peninsulae wore metal armor indeed. Maybe it is out of the time frame but the Turkish riders known as spahi often wore chainmail with a half-helmet (the other half was covered by mail), bow&arrows and saber.

@Nahadiel: look closer, North has skirmishers as well :)

He he, I'm blind. Anyways I've realized that infatry polearms suck a lot in M&B. I know that infantry in ISOAF wore this stuff but maybe it would better to give them 2 handed weapons? Altough, doing this would somehow ruin some of Northern differences as they heavy infantry is supossed to wear those weapons.

Sparehawk

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2008, 01:16:03 PM »
Muslim armies that invaded Iberic Peninsulae wore metal armor indeed. Maybe it is out of the time frame but the Turkish riders known as spahi often wore chainmail with a half-helmet (the other half was covered by mail), bow&arrows and saber.

I'm not saying that dornish warriors shouldn't wear metal armor at all, I'm only talking that plate armor should be not so obvious in Dorne as in central Westeros. But chainmails and even lamellar still could be used quite widely.

Anyways I've realized that infatry polearms suck a lot in M&B.

I assume, RCM will fix it.

ser Jeekim

  • Guest
Re: Tweaking troops
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2008, 01:24:03 PM »
Well, I have always mentally linked Dorne with Spain at the time of reconquista. So the Muslim influence is there, but it never seemed like Middle-East to me.
And the infantry in question does not have to be "heavy" in the sense of being clad in plate armor from head to toe. Their current lamellar (?) seems pretty much in place. (Hell, Dornish items have the best looks in game, imho.)
I was more keeping in mind the fact that they would be lacking about any sort of experienced melee infantry. Dorne is not desert only; it has mountains as well. One might prefer to fight on foot in rough terrain..
Maybe if those veteran crossbowmen get halberds or spears as secondary weapon, so that they could stand for themselves in melee as well...
Basically I am missing somebody, who would fight in the style of Prince Oberyn - melee, on foot and kicking serious ass  :D