SWGB could garrison animals in a mill and slowly food will come in,maybe that is doable here too?
3 Likes
Trickle of food already seen with Burgundians, Khmer no drop-off farms & Honfoglalás battle.
Yes… Good point. Like paladins of Byzantines 
Well, thats not fully correct in my opinion. Regarding medieval Europe I think paladins should be granted to all civs with chivalric culture and were semifamous for relying on heavy cavalry.
- If I remember well JonOli wrote somewhere Ports were not wellknown for cavalry because of lack of horses and specific character of landscape.
- Spain can have paladins because of presence of many catholic military orders
- Italy was famous for infantry and crossbowmen (and navy) so they can be without paladins
- I dont know why Celts have paladins… Personally, I would give them just cavaliers…
- Britons should have paladins but devs probably wanted to emphasize the role of archers and that sounds me OK, it makes sense.
- Vikings because they are Vikings although they also represent Norse I think they are ok with cavaliers
- Franks, Teutons, Bohemians, Burgundians, Poles, Hungarians have or should have full upgraded or not fully uprgaded but bonus enhanced pals (e.g. Teutons)
- I dont understand why Huns and Cumans have pals except for game design purpose/balance…
2 Likes
I guess because Huns and Cumans were great riders, and the game don’t especially make distinction between “cultural” cavalry. Huns are out of the time-frame anyway, so it’s a bit speculative.
Most of the best Mamlukes (slave soldiers) cavalrymen were heavy cavalry and from Cumans origin.
Not sure of Italians without paladins, Condotierri companies were almost entirely heavy armoured cavalry. So they definitly shined in imperial age. Edit : Honestly I don’t even see why they are supposed to be more famous for their infantry. Afaik, not that much.
5 Likes
Another thing that I came across: the following civs don’t have full campaigns:
East Asia: Chinese, Koreans & Japanese
Eastern Europe: Magyars & Slavs
Northern Europe: Vikings
Middle East: Turks & Persians
Americas: Mayans
Will there be future DLCs set in either of those areas?
8 Likes
I fully agree with You, but I meant about Pals as representation of quality armor. Like for example Portugal. I don’t have much knowledge about Portugal history and knights. But Portugal despite not beining known for huge utylization of heavy cavalry, for sure the armor that Portugal knight wear wasn’t worse than French or Spanish.
But ofcourse it also depends on knight himself, what are his armor preferences ( for example more open on closed helmet ) and ofcourse cash he has.
Pretty much game design. Let’s be honest all discussions here are just purely for fun. We can talk about historical accuracy, but it is all in devs hands. Like for example Vikings having stereothypical red hair berseker with helmet with horns. And now Poles with pushed to the game Polish Hussars or Bohemians focused around Hussites.
3 Likes
Italy however had some really good horses so them not having Palas is weird
The same goes with Vikings somewhat, Norse cavalry was pretty good.
Eh, I think them being diferent from Slavs isnt enough if they end up being too much like Lithuanians
Honestly no idea how they can be diferent enough.
Well, It appears that Poles will have somehow boni for farmers so they are already different than Lithuanians who have extra food as only eco bonus.
5 Likes
Eh, I dont think thats diferent enough.
If the civ ends up being just a mix of Lithuanians and Slavs it will still feel kind of unnecesary to me
But it is what it is, it will prob be a fun civ either way
What can you do against now?
Lithuanians were wrongfully designed as what a Polish civ would look like - that’s the root of the “problem”.
Not the necessity of the Poles in a Middle Ages game, “one of medieval Europe’s most powerful states” to quote the store page.
4 Likes
I hope the Slavs will be renamed to Rus for the sake of right representation. It’s easy, won’t affect a thing in the game and the “Slavs civ umbrella problem” will be solved foreva.
4 Likes
Then the worm can for Chinese and Saracens will appear here
Dont insult me while saying that “I told you so” when your arguments are always so poor. Whether the devs decide one thing or other it doesnt mean you or I are right or wrong on saying one thing or other not to mention the last discussion we had ended up in an embarrasing way for you.
It is the problem for sure I can agree with that.
Never quote marketing if you want to make a valid point. I have nothing against Poles but when a civ can have its highest point of power represented by other civ or are highly related to other civ that its already similar enough to them gameplaywise you lose most of the reasons to add them.
That goes for Bulgarians as well, who are a fun civ but feel unnecesary imo (and dont kill me JonOli but I would say that also goes for Portos too).
meh, don’t care, one at a time I guess
But “Saracens” is not a proper name as well, not gonna lie.
1 Like
Yes, I dont contradict that. However, at least for me, when somebody says Italian medieval army I imagine infantry, crossbowmen and navy. Regarding Vikings I see ships full of infantry with large shields. Its stereotypes, I know, and designers decided to stick with them so palas were omitted. So I dont deny them palas I am just saying it makes sense they do not have them.
I dont know about any battle where Italian or Viking army were heavily involved with large cavalry contingents. Do you have any info about that?
Btw the same is applicable to Hussites, when an ordinary person imagine Hussite army as war wagons and shooters (crossbowmen, gunmen, slingers) while the reality was Hussites did have cavalry, but had different role. Their cavalry was used to either for flanking or for pursuing of retreating enemy. So if devs decided to take Hussites as the only representation of Bohemia, then it makes sense without palas…
So yes, I understand why Bohemians probably wont have palas, but honestly I am sad at same time
3 Likes
About Italians army : Condotierri companies were almost entirely heavy armoured cavalry (men-at-arms). It’s why they declined at some point like most of heavy cavalry. (But Italians city-states were highly reliant on mercenaries, and continued to hire light cavalries like Stratioti and such others)
Crossbowmen are famous of Genoa, Navy is famous of Venetians. Infantry in general, not that much, it was the great part of the armies, some were decently good, but nothing iconic like the Swiss infantry for exemple. Every Italian City States didn’t really shine with navy, it was really more a Venetian thing.
Condotierre is the most “iconic” or “cliché” choice (depending the point of view). So they are the choice when you think to Renaissance Italians. It’s emblematic. And the Palas being a cavalry of imperial age (so heavy armored as a man-a-arms of late middleage) it totally fit with condotierre.
But Sadly, it’s like Teutonic Knights, Condotierre in AoE II is an infantry unit, but the Palas would have been good too.
About Vikings, it’s fine if they are light navy and infantry focused. And raiding. They didn’t shine for their heavy cavalry as the iconic Norman cavalry from their “cousins/descendants”
4 Likes
Hussite had cavalry but the vast majority of it was light cav.
Italians using cavalry was pretty common I think even though their crossbowman were more famous. I think the main reason to the crossbowman being more known may be that since they didnt follow the Feudal social system society didnt support them as much. Either way at the end of the day italian cav was good and very important for battles like the Battle of Fornovo
The thing about Vikings is that later norse had really good cavalry (there would be no reason to add Normans if vikings had something like Paladins without bloodlines) but early Vikings would mostly just steal them for ground moves (I think, I have to check in a book I have).
Tbh we also have Chinese without HC or Franks without Arbalest when they were the ones that named it so idk why Im complaining about this
2 Likes
to come back to the topic, even if I don’t think it’s “that important” to make the Poles design singular, I think it would have sense to give access to Paladins to Poles, because it was one of the only european powers which continued to highly use heavy shock cavalry with some success in late medieval to early modern.
4 Likes