Mod: MA al-Nadim - The thousand and one nights 1.01)

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

So, I need to dig up sources for some of the rest of your comments, but I am quite certain on this point. The mongols were just coming into mesopotamia during the time of the crusades, and were even initially friendly towards the crusaders (and hostile to the Islamic empire). Thus they certainly weren't 'mongol' or other steppes tribe archers - those would certainly come later, but not during the (at least early) crusades. It wouldn't be until the mongols switched to preferring Islam to Christianity (due to the death of a leader - the Ilkhan maybe? - who was pro-Christian) that steppes tribe archers would become avaialable.

So let's start digging!
As for Mongols' disposition you are quite right. But you've said that Islamic archers were the best in time. So, while I'm not sure at all about Hungarians (who even sometimes took part in Crusades afair, being Catholic) and while Byzantines were not better in horse archery than Turkish peoples, the Mongolians provided clear example that your overstatement was somewhat too bold...
As for archers available I've said that they came from Turkic tribes. Mongolians weren't the only people on the steppes at the time - though they came to be their overlords.
Considering switching to Islam - it came to western Hordes with succession of Ouzbek-khan to the throne. Before this time they had a complete freedom to choose among their old shamanic faith, Islam, Christianity (Orthodox or Nestorian mainly) or Buddhism. Some leaders of early period were Christian , while others saw a political advantage in making common cause with Christians against Islamic states. Joinville writes that these negotiations came to naught due to "the Khan" offering Lois X to become his subject (not that this wasn't inappropriate considering difference in their power at the moment! )

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Now, what I read didn't make it clear if the archers are specifically arab - i'd guess they were drawn from across the islamic world, which may have included various middle eastern peoples such as persians, egyptians, etc...

I wouldn't say egyptians as these people were mainly non-combatant by the time of islamic conquest. Military elite in this country consisted of foreigners almost(?) exclusively. Persians quite probably, but I don't know how many of their warrior caste was drafted into Islam armies and how many were killed or banished. Turkic peoples of the steppes (there were many tribes of them), however, were available and it's known that they were used, forming core of Ghulams and Mamluks in various Islamic states.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

First of all, the 'lance' as we think of it requires the invention of the stirrup, so pre-stirrup (before ~900AD) cavalry clearly aren't using a 'lance' as we mean it.

Yes, though first stirrups are dated somewhat earlier afaik - at about 5-6th centuries AD. This is on the steppes, however. In Europe they appeared later, but the heavy cavalry of Charlemaigne already had them afair. Another 2 things which you need for true lance are deep "western" saddle and preferably cuirass to take an impact from you shoulder to this saddle. (also see below)

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

A 'light lance' still has some technological innovations which separate it from a spear, such as a crossbar behind the head to stop penetration from going too deeply (so it can be withdrawn and used again relatively quickly). We have artistic evidence for such a device in Byzantium at around the time of the crusades, I know.

I'd name such a weapon ranseur... And using this as a distinhuishing feature you'll have to drop weapons of the later cavalry to "non-lance" category. But 18-19 century ulans (sp.), cuirassirs and Cossacks used them from horseback on charge quite handily. And these were specific cavalry weapons, to be used on charge.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Lance, especially the mechanical benefits the game employs, requires that it be couched and the momentum of the horse used as the primary force behind the weapon. This is what constitutes the effectiveness of the european heavy cavalry charge.

The part about momentum is true. But there is more than one way to use it. The first one known was probably contos - another "battering ram" which Macedonian heavy cavalry affixed to horses themselves with quite qood results. Later Alans and other steppe peoples used their lances two-handed. Byzantines also took this approach for a time iirc.
As for "european" charge (and you must remember that Byzantium and Hungary are also a part of Europe, even if you won't include Russia! ) you've quite probably seen the depiction of Willhelm of Normandy taking England. Here it's clearly seen that couching is used as only one of ways of using spear/lance. At the same time, Ousama ibn Munkidh's memoirs clearly state at least one case where he used couching attack (I think it's also mentioned by Joineville). But "eastern" saddle wasn't so good for this method (as rider sits higher, often rising from the saddle altogether - making it more useful for archery). So they never came to using couching and heavy ("true") lances exclusively (and Poles, e.g. used couching, but lighter lances) - still, they used relatively heavy weapon held two-handed which allowed usage of the horse's momentum on charge (yes, it still wasn't as good for this as classical lance, but it was often enough - and this technics was also useful for fencing with it.
Returning to mounted charge, it was a function of horses' speed and mass - but it also depended on the formation as a whole. One knight was relatively harmless - it was a coordinated attack of a formation of them which caused enemies to flee or be trampled under hooves. The later term for this was an "attack en murraile"(sp?), i.e., "as a wall", many knights (or later cuirassiers) coming at an enemy at one moment, declining them an opportunity to combine against any one knight or sidestep his attack. If I had to name any one thing that constitutes efficiency of a mounted charge, I'd name this. An additional advantage of it was that if lighter troops wanted to evade such a charge, they had to either ride directly from attacking heavies or risk that their "tail" would be caught in the charge and killed off (with this risk rising proportionally to their numbers, by the way). And with troops without discipline of Mongols riding directly from enemy attack could easily turn into a complete route...

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

This is more confusing because the term lance is older than the object that matches our modern conception of a lance, and was basically any spear-like object generally when used from horseback. Thus period sources may use the term, but they don't necessarily mean what we mean by the term.

Surely. But this is so with most weapons - conventional terms appear later, either with dedicated fencing schools, or with regular armies, bureaucracy and logistics. What is broadsword, for example? Anything which isn't a fencing sword/rapier and isn't short. At different times and places it could be two-handed weapon, Scottish claybeg, medieval one-handed sword, Cuirassier's sword - or Chinese falchion-like weapon! And this is relatively late term... Generally, a specific name followed a specific use of a weapon - so we can quite readily consider that if a weapon was named so, it was used in this way. And in context of the game we may consider without fear of reprisal from Language Police that a weapon designed and used in a specific way should have appropriate stats...

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

European horses were actually smaller than their islamic adversaries' horses - which was why muslim forces used barding in the hot climate while the europeans didn't - less risk of exhausting a larger horse. European horse stock got larger as a result of the first crusade because they could interbreed arabian horses with european horses.

I'm not so sure about this. It's certainly known that knights often stated that they didn't have good horses. It's known, of course, that they used Arabian blood to mingle with their horses. But Arabian line is much smaller than modern European ones! There are very tall horses of Persian and Caucasus lines - but I remember no evidence that they actually were used for breeding of European lines. Do you? Of course, a hybrid of far-removed lines can become larger and stronger than either of them... But this doesn't support a thesis that Arabian line was larger either. And what you base a thesis of smaller horse being exhausted easier on? I can say that the lines which have the longest wind among modern horses are Mongolian and Cossak lines - both smallish, though thicker than Arabians...
Unfortunately, most sources on earlier horse lineage were written by professionals for professionals - and they considered that anyone who would read their books would already know general lines and terminology by heart. Plus, many things were written down from hearsay, without attempts to really analyse lines' genesis. Still, there are some things which can be rejected based on logic and hard evidence, and some things can be proved on this. What made you think that Arabian horses were larger?

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

And political reasons explain the 1st crusades strategic advantage, but not its apparent tactical advantage. AFAICT the tactical advantage is due to the heavy cavalry charge and the crossbow, both of which we have contemporary muslim comments about.

Crossbow surely. This remains to be the same by the time of Lois the Holy. Ibn Munkidh mentions it also, iirc. The line or ring of dismounted knights is another thing mentioned often (particularly in Richard Lionheart's crusade). Charge is mentioned, but I don't remember particular Muslim comments. What I do remember is that it was quite successful in cases whan it was massed, organized and driven home. Meaning that formation and at least some discipline were important, more than couching as such...

(in the game, by the way, it means high Morale of knights - meaning also that you were right about making Arab-based non-sacreds with lower morale... At the same time, light lances are quite appropriate. Also, Arab horses should be better than those of other light cavalry)

[llamabeast]

Tell me squirreloid, does this misuse of the word "light" by dominions bother you?

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

Tell me squirreloid, does this misuse of the word "light" by dominions bother you?

Yes, yes it does.

Actually, the rampant misuse of the term by fantasy fans in general does.

I'm pretty sure military buffs get it right, because the distinction between light and heavy still exists, its just weirder now than it was pre-1900.

(Light cavalry today is aircraft. Heavy cavalry is tanks. The light/heavy infantry distinction is, iirc, a matter of armament, mostly to correspond to the historical unit vs. unit dominance paradigm. Ie, with equal training HI > HC; LI > (HI,LC); LC > (HI,HC); HC > LI). So infantry with anti-tank weapons is heavy, and other infantry is light, although with typical modern dispersal of weapon types across squads its no longer really a squad-level distinction)

Of course, dominions also suffers from the 'cavalry is awesome just because it is' syndrome, something also typical of fantasy buffs with little actual military knowledge, and generally based on the dominance of the knight in early medieval europe (which happened because the infantry *did not* have equal training or appropriate weaponry) and a fascination with chivalry and the medieval knight. Such people tend to ignore, eg, Bannockburn (Scotts used makeshift pikes to destroy a cavalry charge) or Avignon (entirely infantry English massacre french cavalry). In addition to not just melting against pikemen, cavalry also get a defensive bonus just for being cavalry. Actual military theory suggests the opposite (cavalry is worse at attacking and defending than infantry because they need to control the horse and fight, whereas the infantry can just concentrate on fighting - heavy cavalry's primary use is therefore running down light infantry).

Ok, this was much longer than intended. Lets just sum up by saying I wish people who did games like this were better at doing their homework.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

In addition to not just melting against pikemen, cavalry also get a defensive bonus just for being cavalry. Actual military theory suggests the opposite (cavalry is worse at attacking and defending than infantry because they need to control the horse and fight, whereas the infantry can just concentrate on fighting - heavy cavalry's primary use is therefore running down light infantry).

Ok, this was much longer than intended. Lets just sum up by saying I wish people who did games like this were better at doing their homework.

Wow.

I disagree with a lot of this.
Show me a source please that suggests actual military theory suggests that cavalry is worse at attacking and defending than infantry because of the need to control the horse.

Off the top of my head I'd say this ignores:
A: Superior elevation of the cavalry man.
B: Significant training of war horses, to attack, to stand over, to crowd.
C: Ability to cover distance at speed.
D: Shock effect of calvalry ie., momentum.
E. Superior reach of the typical cavalry.
F. The ability of the horse to be cover (ala american indians)
G. The ability to transport goods and or be food.

No military unit is invulnerable. It certainly is a game of rocks, scissors, and paper, that has been played time and time again.


Cavalry get a defensive bonus because the cost of these units were such that it was foolhardy to deploy them without training - whereas it was common to deploy huge masses of levees (infantry) with no training - and sometimes no weapons.

For example, even in WWII, in many companies, the Russians at Leningrad issued 2 guns for every 5 soldiers. The ones that didn't have guns were expected to pick them up off the ones that did.

The 'troops' had no training - and were shot by their officers at the merest hint of disobedience.

Or the us airforce - our airmen are highly highly trained. Those planes are *expensive*. The more expensive the munition, the easier to justify additional training, equipment, care in deployment etc.

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

For example, even in WWII, in many companies, the Russians at Leningrad issued 2 guns for every 5 soldiers. The ones that didn't have guns were expected to pick them up off the ones that did.
The 'troops' had no training - and were shot by their officers at the merest hint of disobedience.

Sorry, that's just fairy tales. My own grandfather fought as "People's Militia" from Moscow to Konigsberg. So I can say you that they had both weapons (my grandfather having semiauto rifle even though he probably shouldn't according to textbooks) and training enough for his particular division to be awarded a "Guards" status later. Actually, they were first placed in the field to build field fortifications with parallel training. Then they manned these fortifications. Of course, they were worse initially than guys who trained from before war started... but then, you should recall that Soviet Union had quite an effective institute of pre-service training, too (Germany had such, too, and Italy and France iirc). As for Leningrad it was a city with quite a number of plants both military and converted to military production as fighting got closer. They even developed a brand new SMG while under the siege! Of course, artillerists, drivers, scrives and such most often did not had rifles.

Returning to cavalry it always had a mobility advantage against infantry but there were periods when it was definitely weaker in straight-out combat. Fortunately, Middle Ages wasn't such a preiod and most Dominions nations live in this period. Still, your rationalization is quite weak. One reason I say so is that riders in Dominions 3 get Def bonus above and beyond their own training. This was done as far as I see to make cavalry surviable on battlefield which was not always so in Dom2. (At the same time they almost always have a Precision penalty) What this bonus may represent is a combination of greater tactical mobility and a chance that attack will strike horse or part of a harness instead of a rider.
Finally, you have probably mistaken a thread.

[elmokki]

There's the last hero I promised. I guess I might add some new hero later, but unless I get a really good idea for a hero, I guess this is it for heroes for now.

EDIT: Apparently you need to copystats for both insane and heretic, and I don't know of any unit who is both insane and heretic without side effects, so Alhazred will sadly have to do with being just insane.

[Sombre]

I like the look - simple, clean, fits in with dom3.

I'd love to see camel cavalry. I think there are a few ways you could make them very buildable units - they could be camel archers with prec 11, composite bows and mapmove 3 (good precision because the camel can support a more stable mount for archery). They could have animal awe and thus be elephant counters - perhaps the smell drives away other animals. They could provide supplies to your units. They could have some other fun justification based on camel mythology ;] They could also have especially good riders, who pick the camel because of its status in their culture.

[elmokki]

Originally Posted by Sombre

I'd love to see camel cavalry. I think there are a few ways you could make them very buildable units - they could be camel archers with prec 11, composite bows and mapmove 3 (good precision because the camel can support a more stable mount for archery). They could have animal awe and thus be elephant counters - perhaps the smell drives away other animals. They could provide supplies to your units. They could have some other fun justification based on camel mythology ;] They could also have especially good riders, who pick the camel because of its status in their culture.

Sounds like a good idea.

Here's a preliminary sprite. As far as I know the camel is a smaller animal than a horse in real life though, so the camel is far too big.

[llamabeast]

Animal awe would be good on camels. In real life I believe they were effective against horses because of the smell. Unfortunately you can't make them good against cavalry in dom3, but you can at least make them good against elephants (and monkeys).

I also like the idea of the camel rider being elite.

Edit (elmokki posted while I was typing): Very nice camel!

Edit again: I think something funny has happened to the camel rider's legs. They are very small.

[elmokki]

Apparently an adult dromedary camel can be 2.15 meters from land to the top of the hump, and riding horses in general seem to be 1.6 meters from land to the start of their neck. The sprite size should actually be good enough.

I'll fix the legs once I come back from my night shift job where I'll be going in next 5 minutes.

The camel sprite is wasteland survival icon resized too 200% and smoothened out to not look so pixelated.