Cultural Tech preferences

[C.N.]

I don't think that changing the exact nature of an enitire tech tree is possbile, even though MrT didn't explictly say anything against it when he outlined the rules in the tech name changing thread.

So we'r stuck with the rather stereotypical "light", "medium" and "heavy" armours.

In that case, classify them by users and not by amor type.
light -> archer, horse archer, militia armor (cheap armor)
medium -> light cav, pikemen armor (medium cost)
heavy -> knight, heavy inf armor (expensive armor)

For example, the highest in all three categories could be:
Light: Breastplate
Medium: Breastplate + mail (maybe?)
Heavy: Full plate (Full Mail -> Mail + Plated Hauberk -> Full Plate)

Hmm, the discussion seems to be drifting of topic.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

The Norman knight is no better armored or equiped than many of his opponents it it is the massed wild charge that gave them the edge for a short period in the c11th and c12th. Islamic warriors were at disadvantage to this almost suicidal rashness until they learnt to turn it to theuir advantage.

In fact the 'wild charge' was less than wild. The sources indicate that a frontal charge was most efficient if used against resisting cavalry or disorganized infantry, something the knights knew. These men were, after all, professional warriors who often had no occupation save war. Lighter horse or shockable infantry could be swept away, but many battle descriptions indicate that flank charges and attempts to draw the enemy out of formation were used.

By the time of the third crusade the crusaders had developed efficient tactics for dealing with skirmishing cavalry; usually forming well-protected infantry/archer screens or boxes to protect the knights who'd launch tactical charges from out of the infantry lines. The sources all agree that what failed at Hattin was the lack of water-i.e. a strategic outmanouvering. After all, arab sources from the 14th century still describe the 'franks' as "masters of the art of war".

Tactics will evolve to meet requirements. During the second Welch revolt the welch deployed massed pikemen against english cavalry armies. To counter this obivous threat the english army deployed archers and crossbowmen to break up the formation and enable the cavalry to charge into a less orderly mass.

Of course mistakes will also be made, and in the grand tradition of medieval historiography these are the ones most scholars seem to concentrate on. Courtrai and Bannock Burn are typical examples of these; the first, an attempt to storm a heavily fortified position, the second, a disorganized and undisciplined army on the march with poor leadership encounters a strong deployed force and attack before preparations can be made.

I doubt singling out specialized nations for better troops is usable compared to the dynamic nature of Crusader kings. If the swiss and scots should receive pike special treatment then so should the welch and the flemings and...you see? Same goes for turkish horse archers...mongol horse archers...turcopoles in crusader service....cumans...etc,etc etc.

EF

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Hmm, the discussion seems to be drifting of topic.

No, this is fine. We're discussing tech tree improvements, not the unhistorical technology in the scenarios-Mr.T. has made it clear that it is intentional and not changeable(for all that it reinforces outdated stereotypes of medieval europe).

The problem is that in the CK rules, the knights and hv.inf. also can wear both 'light' and
heavy' armour if there is an armour in those tech groups that is worse than their own.

EF

 

[C.N.]

I doubt singling out specialized nations for better troops is usable compared to the dynamic nature of Crusader kings. If the swiss and scots should receive pike special treatment then so should the welch and the flemings and...you see? Same goes for turkish horse archers...mongol horse archers...turcopoles in crusader service....cumans...etc,etc etc.

I'm also starting to feel that there should be no culture effects on tech. But, I insists that medium and heavy armor research is penalized in desert provinces.

 

[C.N.]

The problem is that in the CK rules, the knights and hv.inf. also can wear both 'light' and
heavy' armour if there is an armour in those tech groups that is worse than their own.

I don't see it as a problem.
Example:
If the knights are still wearing mail and those pikemen just got themselves some nice protective plate hauberks, I can see much complaining until the lord gives in and gives the knights plate hauberks, which would give more protection overall, but lesser protection than the old mail for some parts of the body. Once the armorers figure about how combine the plate hauberk with the all around protection of a full mail suit, the knights would upgrade again.

 

[Solmyr]

I'm also starting to feel that there should be no culture effects on tech. But, I insists that medium and heavy armor research is penalized in desert provinces.

I agree, it would be far better if certain AI nations concentrated on specific research fields instead. Turks and Mongols on archery, Normans on knight-related techs, etc. But that is a question of reprogramming the AI, which I guess only Paradox can do since it's hardcoded.

 

[FinnN]

I was thinking about this and I also think that the way that tech is currently there in CK is a bit strange, but I think it's more to do with the way they're named rather than their effects on the game.

To use the bow list as an example right now the game implies that shortbows are 'discovered' then longbows, etc. As this happens across the board with most of the advances it comes across that CK's Europe in 1066 is set in some sort of hybrid stone-bronze-iron age. The bonuses on the other hand seem reasonable - efficiency x1.5 etc to those troops.

What I'd suggest is changing the advances names to reflect tactics and training rather than actually technology. Thus one advance could be 'mass archery', another one could reflect the English laws that enforced archery practice, and so on. Whilst some advances could probably stay as tech ones (eg innovations in metal working or the use of gunpowder weapons) I think attaching the bonuses to the way technology was used matches medieval Europe better. Also often these tactics were influenced by local culture and geography, so again would fit in nicely with tech preferences concept.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

IWhat I'd suggest is changing the advances names to reflect tactics and training rather than actually technology. Thus one advance could be 'mass archery', another one could reflect the English laws that enforced archery practice, and so on. Whilst some advances could probably stay as tech ones (eg innovations in metal working or the use of gunpowder weapons) I think attaching the bonuses to the way technology was used matches medieval Europe better. Also often these tactics were influenced by local culture and geography, so again would fit in nicely with tech preferences concept.

I'd really, really like that too(it's the only way to make the weapon groups anything close to historical), but it's difficult because each advance also brings a new weapon with a new value(see the advances FAQ) - if it is possible not to change the name of the weapon: let's say, the long sword(the real long sword, i.e. the bastard sword in current CK) is the last tech got invented, the next tech level would be "Masters of Defense"(representing 14th and 15th century formal fencing schools like Lichtenauer, Talhoffer, Ringeck etc.), raising the damage of the long sword while not changing the name on the unit roster.

Once the armorers figure about how combine the plate hauberk with the all around protection of a full mail suit, the knights would upgrade again.

Which would sort of take 5 minutes. Medieval people were quite aware of the possibility of plate armour - early 13th century bible illustrations show "Goliath", which is described in the bible wearing greaves on a legs and arms, wearing just that-in bronze(which was expensive and not too good for armour, and such wasn't worn) and sometimes metal(which would be hyper-expensive). However, since waterwheels were not used in armour production back then, the effort to hammer large plates of steel and iron flat was not cost-effective; they could make lamellar plates at an acceptable prize, but a real plate would be so overprized you could get several sets of regular mail for the same cost. Upon the introduction of waterwheel power the production of drawn iron thread made maille much cheaper(and ensured that the closed link ring all but disappeared, to be replaced by only riveted rings) and after some experimentation was used to power large hammers that made it much more practical to produce plates.

It is less of a problem because it usually only occurs when the plate and chain group are bereft of advances and the knights run around in "soft leather" beacuse of strange spread events.

Note on the short bow:
Yes, the term is older than D&D, but was then mostly used by laymen and a very few historians who hadn't read too many original texts. D&D, however, spread the term so much around I tend to refer to it as a Gygaxism. Much the same with the bastard sword; an "epèe bastarde" is a 16th century spanish fencing blade that some dullard in the 19th century confused with the long sword. Both terms endure through the ages on the tide of old habits.

EF

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Some good discussion going on here...

To answer a vew questions/comments that ahve been made above:

1. Changing the displayed names of the advances *somewhat* would not be objectionable but changing their *effect* would have very large consequences that would require massive changes to code and balanace. In effect, the things that are described as weapons should remain described as weapons since the AI will continue to treat a bastard sword as a bastard sword or a reinforced longbow as a reinforced longbow when it decides how to equip a regiment. Do not suggest changing the bonus each level gives (i.e. you can tweak the advances names and descriptions but don't make changes to the ck\db\advances.txt file contents since that will not be done other than for balance reasons and would normally be done only by the developers).

Remember that those weapon names will also appear when you look at your regiment so be careful that when you change the name of something that appears in there, it should make some logical sense.

2. Again, I'm looking for perhaps the top 20 or 30 "don't miss this!" sort of things to script. I'm inclined to give the Welsh the bow bonuses (perhaps for L2, L3 and L4 only) simply due to the strength of the popular mythology. I would concur with giving Swiss some bonuses in part (all?) of the pike category and I gather that I should do the same (similar) for the scots. I also concur that giving Normans a slight edge fo the two lance advances (and perhaps one or two of the associated tactics group) might be viable.

IIRC there was a part of Germany and a part of Italy that were both renowned for thier armouring - particularly plate. Similarly, there were a couple regions that had far abov ethe norm in terms of swordsmithing.

Also, I'm not just asking for military techs. What about extraodrinary argriculturalists? How about trade? Legalists? Etc. While the flash and glamour might be in the shiny new toys to put in the hands of your troops, there are actually more advances that deal with economy and thought (production and culture) than there are for sharp pointy sticks - and that's the area in which I am perhaps somewhat less well versed.

 

[Endre Fodstad]

Also, I'm not just asking for military techs. What about extraodrinary argriculturalists? How about trade? Legalists? Etc. While the flash and glamour might be in the shiny new toys to put in the hands of your troops, there are actually more advances that deal with economy and thought (production and culture) than there are for sharp pointy sticks - and that's the area in which I am perhaps somewhat less well versed.

I tend to gripe about the weapons and armour because it's just so...you know.
The flemish, german baltic city-states and italians are the most renowned trade specialists. Agriculturally, the french are usually the ones that pioneer agricultural techniques but these spread rapidly over borders - the three-field system and tiller plow appear first in france but spread to england just few years later. Coicidentially, because of the state of Italian soil, the tiller plow isn't as effective there as the more northernly countries - the ard and cross-plowing techniques are in extensive use in the Mediterranean at a time when almost all the more northernly regions have adapted the use of tiller plows and stripe plowing- but this is a question of what is suited to the climate rather than technological backwardness.

Culturally, there is one great and grand shining beacon of europe: France. The french are the orgininators of a great deal of what we view as medieval(and early modern) culture. This applies equally well to noble, popular and church customs. This is a fact that tends to disappear in english language literature....somehow.

The spanish should perhaps get some armor and possibly weapon bonuses; they frequently show some interesting advances that only appear in other parts of europe decades later, especially in the armor field. This has less to do with their contact with the muslims as the fact that the spanish were more or less continually fighting their southernly neighbours and amongst themselves-possibly. The book is as yet unwritten on that subject.

EF

 

[unmerged(23737)]

I think all european holdings(especially central europe and england) should get a bonus on commercial techs(from L2 upwards)!
Think of the Hanse or other commercial improvements in europe in comparision to the muslims.
For more infos about commerce in this age look here

 

[unmerged(24449)]

Chris1959

Don't know if there is a specific but in animal husbandry a bonus for the English, a huge slice in their wealth came from the woolen trade think they were the main suppliers for all Europe.

The Spanish had a reputation for breeding some of the finest war destrier in Europe, so a slight quality edge to their cavalry.

Italian states for just about any artistic bonus !

 

[unmerged(24449)]

Chris1959

For the English not so much a bonus for the longbow, the Welsh claim that, but a definate bonus on defensive tactics missle barrage.

 

[unmerged(7789)]

From what I can recall the Jewish population in Iberia before (and to an even greater degree after) the Arab/Berber/etc. invasion of the area had a great impact on technology such as glassblowing, goldsmithing, and weaving. Since there is no "Sephardic" or "Berber" culture in the game it might be a little difficult to translate the advances that were present in the region due to this, but one would think that some bonus to handicrafts in the area would be desirable since they were more advanced in the artisan crafts than a large portion of the medieval world.

 

[Inostra]

I think all european holdings(especially central europe and england) should get a bonus on commercial techs(from L2 upwards)!
Think of the Hanse or other commercial improvements in europe in comparision to the muslims.
For more infos about commerce in this age look here

But the muslims traded *alot* with, for exampel, India and south-east afrika. To quote A History of World Societies (a simpel but reasonably reliable book) "Islam had a highly positive disposition toward profit making enterprises. In the period from 1000 to 1500 there was less ideological resistance to the striving for profit in trade and commerce in the Muslim world than there was in the Christian West." We must remember that the focus for Arab trade was the Indian Ocean not the mediterranean.

 

[Cat Lord]

*bump*

MrT, is your list done now, or should we sticky this for a while ?

Cat