I can’t confirm for early middle ages, but in late period, cavalry archers were really common in European armies.
I’ve just gave idea to give Bohemians and Poles Mounted Crossbowman so they will be more unique ( smilliar to Cav Archer, but lower rate of fire and higher damage ). Ofcourse other Europeam nations used Mounted Crossbowman too, but It is just the game. Sergeants were used in entire Europe, and Axemen or Pavise ( Genoese ) Crossbowmen too.
I think it is time to change the name of some civs.
A huge gap introduced by the last DLC is the fact that the game has “Italians” and “Sicilians”, “Franks” and “Burgundians”.
Probably Slavs have the same problem.
This is another example where a name change of existing civs would make sense. Venice is a good idea, but Italians should have a different name.
Not necessarily, the Italians may represent the italian kingdom and city states that were part of the HRE, which Venice were never part of it.
Italians have strong navy which is reflective of Genoa, Pisa and Venice. We need some custom churches and mosques to add more regional flavour like we did for castles. More reskinned castles please.
I may agree that there are other civs that takes priority, but the Italians in the game doesn’t represent Venice at all…
The Italians in-game are Genoese. I think some civs have to be renamed for the good of upcoming civs like Slavs to Rus, Italians to Geonese and Indians to Mughals.
Not necessarily genoese, the condos for example is more of a milanese or florentine soldier. So that’s why in general they represents that North-West Italian states that were under the HRE, at least nominally.
If you want to rename Italians choose one or else your Venetians would overlapped with the current Italians.
We need their church to be Cathedral of San Marco. That would bring in the Venetian flavour to the Italians - or they get a Galleass ship unit.
Mmm then probably longobards, but still Italians can be used, but they shouldn’t be confused with the nowdays Italians…
Its a broad category. Same with Spanish (Navarrese, Leonese, Catalans, Castilians, Aragonese, etc), and Indians too. Live with it. At least the Italians are somewhat accurate, unlike the Indians :o
I’m stating if he wants Venetians in-game it would be weird to have Italians too. It’s like you’re adding Castilians when Spanish exist in-game.
It would be as much weird as when they introduced the sicilians, because people think of nowdays Italians…
It really should, Cranequiers, not Horse Archers, were the Mounted Marksmen of Western Europe.
Horse Bows never really took off in the continent, after the Goths, except in the very East.
Cavalry Archer tactics were heavily dependent on the availability of Horses, and men taht would train Mounted Archery all their lives, which Western Europe, with it’s dense Forests and Marshlands, and fully agrarian societies, lacked.
You really need nomads and vast Grasslands, for Mounted Archery to be feasible and available in dependable numbers.
No they were not, Europe did not have the conditions to field Horse Archer Hordes, and Horse Archers are dependent on Horde tactics and strategy.
Euro civs should really never have got the Cav Archer in the first place, and it is dead tech for most of them.
Western Europe went from Mounted Javalineers (Genitours) to Mounted Crossbowmen (Cranequiers) directly. There was never even developed a proper Horseback Bow in Europe, which you can see on every people that developed Mounted Archery, even if very late (like Lakota and Comanche).
An Infantry Bow, which ALL Western European Warbows were, is not suitable for mounted combat, it is too large and cumbersome, and not even composite.
I don’t know where do you have those informations.
Example: in Battle of Grunwald in 1410 most Polish and German forces were mostly heavy knights with lighter armored sergeants and cavalry archers and cavalry crossbowmen. It was due the fact in late Europe “column system” started to being really popular, where cavalry was forming long columns before battle. After the charge column was retreating and could rest or charge again.
The cavalry archers and crossbowmen were behind melee cavalry and as I said before in late middle ages that army and “column system” strategy was really popular.
Poles are not Western Europeans, and the Teutons used mercenaries for Cavalry Archers.
Also, most of the Mounted Bowmen were Tatars from the Lithuanian side.
Cavalry Crossbowmen are not the same as Cavalry Archers, at all. Even the tactics are different, because Cranequins reload significantly slower than a Bow can be drawn.
Exactly overlapping civilizations are already in game.
Poland is not geographically Western European country. But Polish culture is entirely based on Western European - Catholic Latin.
Heavy Knights as main charge power, Mounted Crossbowmen and Archers behind, Lighter armored than Knights - Sergeants on flanks.
Tatars in battle of Grunwald were mostly mounted bowman. But Poles had cav archers too.
Personally, I don’t have informations about Teuton mercenaries. But many of their cavalry archers were Prussians.
I hope in the picture above clearly we can see cav archers and cav crossbowmen behind melee cav.
Yes, Cavalry Crossbowmen are not the same as Cavalry Archers and I never stated that.
I believe, we did not understand each other, because you thought this \/
You thought I was talking about European Horse Archer used smilliar like those in Mongolian or Magyar army, horde tactic. European Cav archers were not used in the same way like those from hordes. As I said before Cavalry archers were behind knights in charging columns, not doing “Horde tactics”.
French cavalry archer from Osprey:
I won’t comment that because I have no sources what kind of bow european mounted archers used. For sure, You are right that wasn’t infantry bow.
Out of this list, I’d only really expect the Poles to make it to the game.
Bohemians and Poles look to be the fan-favorites
