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

[Sombre]

While we're on the subject of graphics, it might be an idea to get the horse rearing up graphic from the vanilla sprites and apply it to the attack sprites of your non missile cavalry - currently the movement from one sprite to the next is a bit too subtle for a large (size 3) unit.

[elmokki]

Originally Posted by Sombre

While we're on the subject of graphics, it might be an idea to get the horse rearing up graphic from the vanilla sprites and apply it to the attack sprites of your non missile cavalry - currently the movement from one sprite to the next is a bit too subtle for a large (size 3) unit.

Agreed, the problem is though, how can I get non-antialiased (or whatever is blurring the sprites ingame) sprites? The bases I currently have are from sprite dumps, but they sadly don't have the attack sprites. For viziers I took a screenshot and built from that, but completely redrawing a rearing horse from a somewhat ok model is a bit too much work if I can get a proper sprite from somewhere.

[Sombre]

If you look in the modding tools thread, I'm pretty sure there's a link to all the vanilla sprites in a zip there.

If you can't find it let me know and I'll upload my copy of it.

[Burnsaber]

There's a download for all vanilla graphics in the first post of Sprite Editing Tutorial.

[llamabeast]

Ah, I bet the imperfect source image was why I thought the vizier looked a bit funny. If you use the image from the sprite archive he should look better I think.

[llamabeast]

Any news on this? I'm really looking forward to it.

[Wrana]

Congratulations!
At last this idea is taken by someone who can draw!
There were some discussions on this already, but I would point to the one where my own opinions were stated:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=38342
There is also another thread currently active.
In short, I think that the EA nation should be mostly genie-based with human nomads as subject race, with MA being based on Khaliphate era (my own version was mostly based on 10th century) and LA on Osmanic Empire.
I agree about difference between city and Bedhuoin troops - you can look up how it was realised in my own attempt in the thread link above.
Considering magic and genies my own short research had shown that appropriate paths should include some Astral (astrology was relatively common, plus genies were often stated as knowing fate of people - plus Arabic folklore is the only place where I've seen something that could be characterized as teleport before 20th century authors). Another thing often mentioned, but mainly with female genies is turning people to animals, charm and production of food/wine - all from Nature path in Dominions. What I decided about this also can be found in the thread above.
As for your graphics - while I myself am not good enough at pixel art (which has already stopped 2 projects), I think yours are good. And I do not think that you should necessarily use an existing tradition of depicting horses in action as rearing. Another thing - Arabs didn't use composite bows like Turks or Mongolians. Their bows were better than common Western design, but not by much, and they didn't particularly like shooting warfare - maybe because of the risk to horses. What they should certainly have is light lancers with very fast horses - which could be deadly at first strike... Later they began to employ a northern Turkish nomads specifically as mounted archers - but those were most often relatively heavy troops (by the way, in Dominions these should be people related to those which conquered Tien Chi in LA, but no name for them is officially given )... If you agree with the general concept I propose or have further questions - I am ready to answer and/or provide some content (as are possibly those who took part in previous discussion ).
So, please continue your good work - twenty centuries are looking at you!

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Wrana

Congratulations!
Another thing - Arabs didn't use composite bows like Turks or Mongolians. Their bows were better than common Western design, but not by much, and they didn't particularly like shooting warfare - maybe because of the risk to horses. What they should certainly have is light lancers with very fast horses - which could be deadly at first strike... Later they began to employ a northern Turkish nomads specifically as mounted archers - but those were most often relatively heavy troops!

Actually, the arabs as of the crusades favored mounted archers, and did use composite bows almost exclusively. Their favorite tactics include riding up to opposing cavalry and firing at close range to shoot the horses out from under them (European cavalry of the time did not wear barding typically, and not at all in the crusades because of exhaustion concerns), and pretending to run away while firing behind them to lead their pursuers into a trap. Islamic mounted archers of the time were perhaps the most accurate in the world, and the practice of archery was quite popular because of Mohammad's pronouncement that archery was the only sport the angels stopped to watch.

Islamic heavy cavalry at the time did not use lances, although they did use spears. The prepared warrior also carried a sword, mace, and axe - although the sword was the preferred weapon (for a number of reasons, but most likely because Mohammad states that the sword is a holy weapon). The idea of a heavy cavalry charge, european style, was shocking to them in the first crusade (and possibly accounts for some crusader wins against superior numbers).

The armor of their light and heavy cavalry was nearly identical - typically a maille shirt, leggings, heavy boots, a metal cap - often worn under turban and robes, although sometimes a metal cuirass was worn on top of this. Heavy cavalry carried a shield.

(Note, in proper usage, 'light' means the unit had a ranged weapon and claims nothing about armor.)

I can provide sources.

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Actually, the arabs as of the crusades favored mounted archers, and did use composite bows almost exclusively. Their favorite tactics include riding up to opposing cavalry and firing at close range to shoot the horses out from under them (European cavalry of the time did not wear barding typically, and not at all in the crusades because of exhaustion concerns), and pretending to run away while firing behind them to lead their pursuers into a trap. Islamic mounted archers of the time were perhaps the most accurate in the world, and the practice of archery was quite popular because of Mohammad's pronouncement that archery was the only sport the angels stopped to watch.

Well, you probably remember that Seljuks were not Arab people... I've said that they used Turk mercenaries and/or warrior slaves specifically for this. Pretending to run away certainly took place often. Firing at close range - surely (by the way, Arab farisi often did that with javelins). Generally, hit-and-run tactics was common for Arab warriors. But they didn't use archery so much nor so exclusevely as is often thought. While they often attacked in hand-to-hand.
As for mounted archers... Islamic - probably, Arab - no. And even for the first point you shouldn't say so when you surely remember that the Mongols emerged on the historical scene right at this time! For them this was not a sport for angels - but a means to feed their childern... Really, I don't know of a case where individual Turkish and Mongolian bows were tested at the same conditions - but as for using them in mass, Bayazed the Lightning was sent into Tamerlan's capital in an iron cell...

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Islamic heavy cavalry at the time did not use lances, although they did use spears. The prepared warrior also carried a sword, mace, and axe - although the sword was the preferred weapon (for a number of reasons, but most likely because Mohammad states that the sword is a holy weapon). The idea of a heavy cavalry charge, european style, was shocking to them in the first crusade (and possibly accounts for some crusader wins against superior numbers).

What you mean by lances then? THey surely didn't use "hand battering rams" of later knights - but then, neither did European knights of the time... They used what is called in the game "light lance" - a long spear used specifically by cavalrymen. Considering other weapons - yes, certainly. I can even add that an Arabian mythology of a sword predates Mohammed (while poetry begins to speak in bow metaphors only after conquest and absorbtion of Persia, by the way). Considering charges I'd say that they probably didn't often perform charges which should carry them through the enemy. Anything more definite would be an overstatement. As for reasons for success of "Franks" in first Crusade - I think there was a number of them, but I didn't study this one in particular detail. There is an opinion that Western knights just used taller and more heavy horses than those in use in Levant and so had a definite advantage in head-on collision. Something may be attributed to difference in armor (even though it was not so big as is often depicted). There were also political reasons... Though the tactics crusaders used had played their role also (but these tactics also included things other than massed mounted charge!).
And of course, considering superior numbers - we should not take crusaders' reports literally. For example, it's certain that the numbers of Constantinopolis' defenders against the 4th Crusade were much less than Villehardouin states. The same is proved in many other instances.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

The armor of their light and heavy cavalry was nearly identical - typically a maille shirt, leggings, heavy boots, a metal cap - often worn under turban and robes, although sometimes a metal cuirass was worn on top of this. Heavy cavalry carried a shield.

I wouldn't even be so preposterious as to insist that they HAD definite light and heavy cavalry which had this specific difference in equipment! There was difference between farisi and nomad cavalry, yes. Both had warriors with differing arms and armor, yes. But mainly the difference was on individual level, with more wealthy warriors having better equipment (unless they considered speed to be of more advantage, of course!). Joinville states that Bedhouines never wear armor, but I think that it may be a rhethorical overstatement (or he didn't consider light armor they did wear as armor. or any number of other reasons. But this shows that their equipment was lighter as a rule).

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

(Note, in proper usage, 'light' means the unit had a ranged weapon and claims nothing about armor.)

Ha! You think there is a proper usage?! I've heard several such... And in contemporary sources... I remember such termins used by Byzantians (in the usage you consider improper, mostly, afair), but neither Westerners nor Arabs. As for later terminology, it was quite certain in case of cavalry and had no relation to either weapon nor armor: it depended on which horses this type of cavalry used! Unfortunately, using this is unpracticable in case of Dominions... Generally, light vs heavy is defined on the basis of mobility, tactical and mainly strategical. This mobility comes for the cost of lighter equipment, so heavy troops have general advantage on the battlefield. So, for example, pavise crossbowmen were never "light" troops. And while hussars and cuirassirs both had missile weapons and swords, the former were light troops and the latter heavy (and carabineers - really, cuirassirs without cuirass - were heavies, too).

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

I can provide sources.

So, generally, can I. Isn't it interesting? (except I really don't remember 1st Crusade. But if you insist, I can look up primary sources on this...)

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Wrana

Well, you probably remember that Seljuks were not Arab people... I've said that they used Turk mercenaries and/or warrior slaves specifically for this. Pretending to run away certainly took place often. Firing at close range - surely (by the way, Arab farisi often did that with javelins). Generally, hit-and-run tactics was common for Arab warriors. But they didn't use archery so much nor so exclusevely as is often thought. While they often attacked in hand-to-hand.
As for mounted archers... Islamic - probably, Arab - no. And even for the first point you shouldn't say so when you surely remember that the Mongols emerged on the historical scene right at this time! For them this was not a sport for angels - but a means to feed their childern... Really, I don't know of a case where individual Turkish and Mongolian bows were tested at the same conditions - but as for using them in mass, Bayazed the Lightning was sent into Tamerlan's capital in an iron cell...

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.

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...

What you mean by lances then? THey surely didn't use "hand battering rams" of later knights - but then, neither did European knights of the time... They used what is called in the game "light lance" - a long spear used specifically by cavalrymen. Considering other weapons - yes, certainly. I can even add that an Arabian mythology of a sword predates Mohammed (while poetry begins to speak in bow metaphors only after conquest and absorbtion of Persia, by the way). Considering charges I'd say that they probably didn't often perform charges which should carry them through the enemy. Anything more definite would be an overstatement. As for reasons for success of "Franks" in first Crusade - I think there was a number of them, but I didn't study this one in particular detail. There is an opinion that Western knights just used taller and more heavy horses than those in use in Levant and so had a definite advantage in head-on collision. Something may be attributed to difference in armor (even though it was not so big as is often depicted). There were also political reasons... Though the tactics crusaders used had played their role also (but these tactics also included things other than massed mounted charge!).
And of course, considering superior numbers - we should not take crusaders' reports literally. For example, it's certain that the numbers of Constantinopolis' defenders against the 4th Crusade were much less than Villehardouin states. The same is proved in many other instances.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Armor was indeed mostly equivalent, at least in type. Not sure about quality.

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.