Battle unit system

[ForVictory]

What will be units system be like, is it anything close to that of EU3 or Rome?
I hope its more like Rome, eu3 unit system doesnt make any sense.

 

[philios82]

Well in the original every province had specific numbers of the different troop types (Knights, light cavalry, heavy infantry etc) and you just mobilized them when you went to war. You could increase the numbers of troops in a province and change the composition of the army by building things and favouring sections of society.

Personally I hope this system comes back because it fits the time frame so well. I can't imagine another system that would work.

 

[Rictus]

I agree with Philios, the previous system worked well, but it could use some tweaking. The main difference I'd like to see is a differentiation between the professional/feudal soldiers and part timers.

In Ck1, when you called up a province to fight, it raised all soldiers currently there. I'd prefer it so that so if you called up a province, at first only the professional soldiers would be raised. So, knights, men-at-arms, etc and FEW if any peasants. This would necessarily be smaller than the numbers we might be used to as it represent only "real" soldiers who would have the full range of cutting edge technology available in that province. They would be highly likely to respond to this summons because, well, they are there to fight.

A second summons would gather together the second class fighters. Peasants, etc. This would gather a large, LARGE number of poorly trained and equipped troops (whose technology levels would then be determined randomly) and would represent pressing primary bread winners, artisans, old men and boys into the fighting. This might be done for two reasons. 1. Out of desperation. 2. To mask true numbers, or make a feint while the main body of professional fighters heads elsewhere.

Naturally this would do much to impoverish the province, perhaps reducing prosperity levels or income, and loyalty would determine how many arrived. If at sufficiently low levels of loyalty might cause a rebellion instead.

 

[Caranorn]

I agree with Philios, the previous system worked well, but it could use some tweaking. The main difference I'd like to see is a differentiation between the professional/feudal soldiers and part timers.

In Ck1, when you called up a province to fight, it raised all soldiers currently there. I'd prefer it so that so if you called up a province, at first only the professional soldiers would be raised. So, knights, men-at-arms, etc and FEW if any peasants. This would necessarily be smaller than the numbers we might be used to as it represent only "real" soldiers who would have the full range of cutting edge technology available in that province. They would be highly likely to respond to this summons because, well, they are there to fight.

A second summons would gather together the second class fighters. Peasants, etc. This would gather a large, LARGE number of poorly trained and equipped troops (whose technology levels would then be determined randomly) and would represent pressing primary bread winners, artisans, old men and boys into the fighting. This might be done for two reasons. 1. Out of desperation. 2. To mask true numbers, or make a feint while the main body of professional fighters heads elsewhere.

Naturally this would do much to impoverish the province, perhaps reducing prosperity levels or income, and loyalty would determine how many arrived. If at sufficiently low levels of loyalty might cause a rebellion instead.

I agree Rictus. This is actually historical. In most feuds a nobleman would only call on his A) knights and sergeants (depending on definition either professional combattants and/or a caste slightly bellow chivalry), maybe demand some contribution from important cities (but who'd field reasonably similar forces to chivalry and sergeantry). The general population B) would usually only be called up for local operations. A) would be of much greater combat capacity and be able to move at a reasonable pace, if serving for longer than 30-40 days they'd become quite expensive. B) would be of very limited military value but be essential in sieges, they would be very slow moving but cost little. So for raiding and counter raiding you'd call only on A), to sieze enemy territory you'd have to call on at least some of B)...

What might be an idea would be that every province can raise 2 units, one (A) that could be composed of heavy cavalry, light cavalry, heavy infantry and missile troops and the other composed of light infantry, peasants and missile troops...

P.S.: Just a rough idea so far, originally I was thinking of mobilising forces for either chevauchée (raid/counter raid) or campaign, the chevauchée force being more mobile but of little value in siege. But somehow splitting these two forces might be the better solution...

 

[telesien]

I also like the old system and I would change just one flavour thing.

Some specific names based on culture and tech level.

Something like:
-frankish knights with at least broad sword and plate mail could be called gandarmes.
-briton and welsh archers with at least longbow would be called longbowmen.
-any western infantry with at least scale mail and warhammer would be called sergeants
-any northern heavy infantry with nothing more than chainmail and battleaxe would be called raider

And so on. Names of units was one thing I really liked in EU3 and I would like to see it here too.

 

[TempestDK]

I think that with the new Barons introduced, we will see a change in the recruitment system.

As you have a certain amount of barons depending on the wealth of the province, I think when the province is mobilized, it is the barons and their personal troops that are raised, not all the farmers and peasants etc.

These along with (hopefully) mercenaries should be the main bulk of your province army. Only in desperate times should you want to raise the peasant rabble (like if you are invaded while the province regiment(s) are gone).

The peasant army should be very disorganized and poorly equipped, and would be no match for a mercenary or professional army. But might succeed if numbers are sufficient or the army commander is very good. Mainly they should be used to slow down the invaders until the main armies return or you have time to assemble more mercenary companies.

 

[Caranorn]

Just one note. For sieges the peasants were essential. A "professional" force might have trained specialist, but no major labour to conduct the actual siege, also any prebuilt siege engines would be slow moving, even compared to the usual wagon train a "professional" force would have...

So I 100% agree with the division of "professional" and levy, but the first should have no serious siege capacity. So to capture enemy cities and castles you'd need to call up at least one of your peasant levies...

 

[philios82]

I think that with the new Barons introduced, we will see a change in the recruitment system.

As you have a certain amount of barons depending on the wealth of the province, I think when the province is mobilized, it is the barons and their personal troops that are raised, not all the farmers and peasants etc.

I really like this idea, there is alot of scope for influencing the numbers and proportions of troops in your demense without being able to control it directly. Although would the armies come as seperate units under the different barons or as one stack like in CK1?

As for Rictus' idea about two call ups, I like it. It means that you can have economic effects of mobilizing your troops without having to ruin a province every time you get rebels.

 

[ForVictory]

But what i really ment was will certain units have bonusses and penalties against other specific units like Rome has eg. spearmen gets bonus vs cavalry etc...

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

But what i really ment was will certain units have bonusses and penalties against other specific units like Rome has eg. spearmen gets bonus vs cavalry etc...

That is also the case in CK1, where f.e. Pike-infantry has a bonus against Knights.

 

[Acularius]

That is also the case in CK1, where f.e. Pike-infantry has a bonus against Knights.

Yep, it was noticeable when you went to the advancement page and read what each 'level of advancement gave'

## Piercing melee weapons
group = {
id = 7

longspear = {
weapon = {
attack = { militia = 5 pikemen = 7 }
pikemen = { heavy_cav = 1.3 }
}
}
pike = {
weapon = {
attack = { militia = 6 pikemen = 9 }
pikemen = { heavy_cav = 1.5 light_cav = 1.5 }
}
}
lance = {
weapon = {
attack = { heavy_cav = 15 }
heavy_cav = { militia = 1.5 archers = 1.5 }
}
}
polearm = {
weapon = {
attack = { militia = 7 pikemen = 12 }
pikemen = { heavy_cav = 2.0 light_cav = 2.0 }
}
}
heavy_lance = {
weapon = {
attack = { heavy_cav = 20 }
heavy_cav = { militia = 2.5 archers = 2.5 pikemen = 1.5 heavy_inf = 2.0 }
}
}
}

Nothing too horrible, I'm hoping this time around I can prioritize which equipment I want my units to use... I always liked my archers to use crossbows instead of bows. However, if I didn't stay one step ahead of the game in terms of advancement... i.e If I have the level 3 advancement of the crossbows or bows... they would choose the bow. Which, I thought was weird because wasn't easier to get a peasant to fire a crossbow than to fire a bow?

Granted, I'm liking the ideas I see above though.

 

[tretii_sleva]

Old CK system is ok, although it could be better. Agree with OP about including good stuff from Rome.