Cuz it diversifies the tech tree and opens ways for more interesting civi concepts?
2 Likes
Ive been able to do that with civ designs for newring decades when the tree was more limited.
You didn’t answer me about the actual scale of usage and usefulness of mounted crossbowmen on battlefield.
If in history they were fairly niche, and especially, were rare than the mounted bowmen, I don’t think the unit is needed when it doesn’t have a cool, unique and useful mechanic or role. Every civ that might have it has even no good cavalry archer gameplay. That would be what I stated at the beginning: Looks like a bit of change for change’s sake. Not opposed but not a fan.
I think regional units are a cool concept that allows civilisations from a region feel and play similar, which makes sense because in real life civilisations neighbouring each other very often used similar weapons and tactics.
The Chinese (before the next update) and the Britons feel more similar then the Britons and Celts or Franks despite those civs being their neighbours and them sharing a lot of culture and history with each other in real life.
Having access to units like Battle Elephants or Camel Riders is obviously only possible in the region where those animals live.
While you only need an Eagle Warrior on the continent that doesn’t have horses.
But that of course also applies to technologies and tactics only used on one area of the world.
Fire Lance are a good example for that and so are some units mentioned in this thread.
Many unit types should neither be generic nor be unique.
1 Like
I dunno. The Chinese have thumb ring, bomb towers and camels. Are you sure about this?
Thumb ring it is specially of Asia archery art, not sure but original ring might start from east Asia. Never can replace ít from China, Viet or korean, Japanese,mongol, turk( they always seen themself have ancestors from mongol region) .v.vv.
Umm…. Im talking tech tree design not history. I just want varied civs with the tech trees we got instead of over complicating
1 Like
The Celts and the Franks don’t even have Bracer.
The Spanish and Portuguese have Thumb Ring, does that make them Asian?
I don’t think you can see any cultural proximity for most civilisations by looking at the techtrees when there are no regional units.
Making new civs with different techtree variations and different simple stat bonuses only works until a certain point. There are not that many generic unit lines and not that many potential bonuses.
And that ignores that civilisations are not just a pile of game mechanics, they also represent a real world civilisation so they need to have bonuses that somewhat make sense historically.
We need a dev in here right now. This crossbow unit for most western European instead of cav Archer
1 Like
I’m agree with you, cross bow man will make it more independent like gennos crossbow from Italia, but we are have abalester it bring detail from Euoper, so I still want have a infantry or some cavalry ( like winged hussar). Or. Make UU Italia for it ok. But you must remake a civ this thing I don’t want.
Well, I am a layman when it comes to armor manufacturing, but I believe it’s true.
However, you speak as if technology alone provided some indisputable advantage, which is not the case. All technology makes sense within its context; outside of it, it often becomes useless, sometimes even counterproductive.
The example of the Portuguese in Africa is pertinent. Portugal, always having a shortage of soldiers, compensated by investing heavily in new technologies. However, a technology as old as poison was a real thorn in their side, even though they had metal armor. All it took was for a mediocre archer to hit an exposed part and you would be dead in 15 minutes at most, simple as that. Think of an “unfair” weapon! The Portuguese could have worn plate armor from head to toe, of course, but then they would have died of sunstroke, as happened to several crusaders against the Arabs and Berbers (who sometimes used mere rawhide shields). To survive and win, they had to adapt their warfare to local warfare (in the African case, using local shields, shock tactics and other things), that is, to a specific context where the advantage of their technology was almost nullified. If the Africans tried to invade Europe, they would probably go through the same situation.
Pop history still repeats this unfounded retroprojection. European military and technological superiority is indeed undeniable after the Industrial Revolution, but not before, with the Europeans being just another group of people like any other. This difference in the campaigns, if not a mere chance, has more to do with pop history than with reality.
4 Likes
OnlyEastern and Western Romans had legionaries at the time. If we want to give Huns and Goths something unique, they may as well give them the Norse Warrior
1 Like
Damn, I love how this thread has evolved into a debate about the mechanics of a hypothetical mounted xbow unit. Gotta admit I should have added that to my list of potential units and its probably a better candidate than the Hobelar for those western European civs.
A summary.
-
Paladin
Existing. Available for the Burgundians, Byzantines (?), Celts (?), Cumans, Franks, Huns, Lithuanians, Magyars, Spanish and Teutons.
The Byzantines and Celts could have a chance to lose access to it, especially for the former if allowing the Logistica to also affect the Knights.
I hope the Armenians could have acccess to it, by the way. -
Winged Hussar
Existing. Available for the Lithuanians and Poles. -
Dromons
Existing. Available for the Armenians, Byzantines, Goths, Huns and Romans. -
Legionary
Existing. Becomes a regional unit and shared with the Byzantines.
If needed, the Romans could have a new second UU in the Imperial Age, like the Carroballista that could place its train button at where the Bombard Cannon is. -
Missionary
Existing. Becomes a regional unit and shared with the Portuguese, after the Portuguese lose their discount on the Monastery units.
If needed, the Spanish could have a new second UU, like the speedy Rodelero replacing the Two-handed Swordsman. -
(Throwing) Axeman
Feudal melee infantry with a slow speed and a range in Barracks. A symbol of the barbarians of early medieval Europe.
Available for the Britons, Burgundians, Celts, Franks, Goths, Teutons and Vikings.
Perhaps only the Franks could have a Elite upgrade and the UT to improve it in the Castle Age, and they would need a new UU in Castles. -
Ribauldequin
Anti-infantrymen gunpowder siege weapons in Siege Workshops. Required the Chemistry.
Available for the Bohemians, Britons, Burgundians, Franks, Italians, Magyars, Poles, Portuguese, Sicilians, Spanish and Teutons.
The civs having it might have to lose access to the Heavy Scorpion.
Meanwhile, the Portuguese would need a new UU in Castles. -
Hobelar
Unique upgrade that replaces the Light cavalry upgrade, having less stats improvements to the Scout Cavalry but making the cost cheaper.
Available for the Britons and Celts. Probably no upgrade in the Imperial Age. -
Genitour
Strong mounted skirmisher that costs gold in Archery Ranges in the Castle Age.
Available for the Portuguese and Spanish.
The training button could be placed at where the Heavy Cavalry Archer upgrade is, and the Elite upgrade button could be placed at where the Parthian Tactics is.
Meanwhile, the current Genitour from the Berbers would be renamed to Zenata Rider, or generally Javelin Rider. -
Boyar
Replaces the Knight with additional armors and costs, and have a upgrade in the Imperial Age.
Available for the Bulgarians and Slavs.
Meanwhile, the Slavs would need a new UU in Castles. -
Cranequinier
Light-armored crossbow horseman from the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
Available for the Bohemians (?), Burgundians, Franks, Italians, Magyars (?), Poles (?), Portuguese, Sicilians, Spanish, Teutons and Vikings.
How to train it is a problem in my opinion. I personally suggest that they shouldn’t simply replace the Cavalry Archer line, otherwise the Bohemians can’t access them, the Magyars and Poles shouldn’t access them to avoid losing their more iconic horse archers, and the other civs won’t have any good Cranequinier.
Maybe it could be trainable in the Imperial Age, with a low basic attack, a bonus vs cavalry, a fairly long firing interval and a food cost (eg 50 food 30 gold), so that they can be simply gathered together while the food cost can avoid the Fast Imperial to abuse it, but ultimately its population efficiency is bad so the player shouldn’t seriously rely on it. The train button could be placed at maybe below the Elite Skirmisher upgrade.
Not European regional units but available for the Europeans:
- Camel Riders: Byzantions, Cumans.
- non-elite Steppe Lancer: Bulgarians, Huns, Magyars.
- Elite Steppe Lancer: Huns.
In conclusion:
- 5 regional units: Spanish.
- 4 regional units: Burgundians, Byzantines, Franks, Magyars, Portuguese, Teutons.
- 3 regional units: Britons, Celts, Huns, Poles.
- 2 regional units: Bohemians, Bulgarians, Goths, Italians, Lithuanians, Romans, Sicilians, Vikings.
- 1 regional units: Armenians, Cumans, Slavs.
I’m not sure if the game allows a civilization to have as many as 5 regional units, which may seem like a crazy number to some people, I feel. If some of the above are cancelled, such as the Ribauldequin, it can reduce the number of regional units of a civ that already has many regional units, but it might be a pity not to take the opportunity to change the Portuguese UU when European civs rarely have the opportunity to receive such a major update. Besides the Ribauldequin, the Axeman and Boyar based on the existing UUs might not be implemented either because the devs might want to avoid more changes.
Also any future Balkan civilizations.
I could see the Strelet, a unit that can switch between a gun and a berdische.
I agree that for the European civs this level of dramatic updating is likely to be limited to the introduction of a new European civ much later.
I agree that the Strelet would be an option, even though it’s quite late and I don’t sure if the Slavs should become a gunpowder civ.
The berdische could be simply reflected by Strelet’s better accuracy and melee armor as a hand cannoneer unit.
I didn’t expect that I have to do literature search for this. But I did search a bit.
The “Fechtbuch” by Hans Talhoffer (15th century book) specify how to fight against mounted crossbowmen on horseback.
Die Illenden.
The pursuer
Wie sich ainer halten sol in der flucht mit dem armprost.
Just so should one behave in the flight with the crossbow.
Der wyl den under das pfert Renen.
This one then means to run beneath the horse.
Hie hatt der den geschossen und stoszt Im den Spiesz mit dem Armbrost hinweg und würt In ergryffen by dem halsz.
Here this one discharges, and then thrusts the lance at him, with the crossbow away, and grasps him about the throat
Hie wyl der den Recht empfahen mit dem Spiesz.
Here this one means to receive the one on the right with the lance.
Wie sich ainer halten sol mit dem Spiesz gegen ainem mit ainem Armbrost.
Just so should one with the lance behave against one with a crossbow.
From the book, mounted crossbowmen would charge and shoot at heavy cavalry. Shoot while at the side of heavy cavalry. Hit and run heavy cavalry.
There is a modern literature of ‘The Horse of Premodern European Culture’
For field battle, mounted crossbowmen were placed on the flanks of lancers and light cavalry.
Pierto Monte mentioned in his work ‘Collectanea’ that mounted crossbowmen are useful against German or Swiss pike block if bombard is absent.
Mounted xbowmen were used together with knight and loght cav to fight pikes/ heavy cavalry charge.
4 Likes
Thank you for your hard research.
I think that fits with my understanding of them. They fought in the basically similar way as the reiter and dragoon a century or two later, charging and firing closely. They were light cavalry or light mounted infantry like the reiter and dragoon too. This is one of the reasons I hope they could get something significantly different from Cavalry Archers in the game.
Regardless of how they fight, having them simply replace Cavalry Archers will have the problems I’ve mentioned:
Also, to some extent I think those Europan civs should still reserve Cavalry Archers to reflect that they still had used horse archers, like mounted bowmen for the English, Moor mercenaries for the Spanish, and Turcopoles for the Crusaders. This is another reason I hope they could get different from Cavalry Archers.
How did they use them ? The French also used mounted longbows but they only used their horses for mobility, they dismounted to use their bows. They didn’t shoot from horseback and absolutely didn’t use parthian shots, compared to what you’d expect a horse archer to do. Using a double mode like the ratha, for which ranged mode decreases speed (as it dismounts), would fit it better.
Turcopoles were local troops from the Levant so they had the training required. I wouldn’t put them in the regular roster of the Franks Teutons…
Some of them did shoot only once and become melee cavalry or foot archers. But still some of them are keeping to be ranged cavalry.
It is actually far too complicated to implement all these mechanics in the game.