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

[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.

[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)

[elmokki]

I made some better attack sprites for some units. Can't say the viziers' attack sprites are much better than the old ones, but slightly anyway. Need to find a better sprite to base them on, but I do like the non-attack sprite.

I tried making a helmet that pokes from the headpiece of those soldiers, but I failed miserably. Does anyone have a good idea on how to make the soldiers look like they have helmets while still keeping them arabic enough looking?

[Burnsaber]

Originally Posted by elmokki

I made some better attack sprites for some units. Can't say the viziers' attack sprites are much better than the old ones, but slightly anyway. Need to find a better sprite to base them on, but I do like the non-attack sprite.

One thing to make your life a lot of easier: you can really go easy on the attack sprites. As long as there is something moving and no "bugs"(like changes in equipment), it'll be fine, trust me on this. About the vizier pic, I've actually used the attack sprite as a base for a unit (see the Holy War mod preview mod, link in sig, feel free to use it if you want.), I really like the pose (actually, to make a vizier hero, just gove the attack sprite a wand or something and tadaa! new unit!).

Originally Posted by elmokki

I tried making a helmet that pokes from the headpiece of those soldiers, but I failed miserably. Does anyone have a good idea on how to make the soldiers look like they have helmets while still keeping them arabic enough looking?

Second thing to make your life easier: Cover stuff up. Example: I was making the graphic in my avatar, but couldn't make the shading in the waist look right after 30 minutes of shading & re-shading I just copy-pasted that girdle on him. Problem solved.

I mean, would be such a stretch just to assume that they can wear helmet under that turban?

[Gregstrom]

Originally Posted by Burnsaber

I mean, would be such a stretch just to assume that they can wear helmet under that turban?

I thought that was what they did. Or was that in India?

[elmokki]

Originally Posted by Burnsaber

I mean, would be such a stretch just to assume that they can wear helmet under that turban?

That IS the original approach I took after my first failure the first time I tried to make decent looking arabic headgear

But yeah, sure, if I can't get a proper helmet-poking-under-a-turban I'll just skip that.

[elmokki]

Originally Posted by Gregstrom

I thought that was what they did. Or was that in India?

The look I was originally after is lookable at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mo..._caliphate.PNG

The current look is far from that, but I'm relatively happy with it.

[elmokki]

Here's some more units. Most are just improved older sprites though. Remember, instead of EA I've decided this is MA. All that recruitable djinn stuff suits better for EA.

The descriptions in the image are just preliminary and do apparently lack helmets, which will mostly be reinforced leather caps and iron caps.

The image is lacking atleast:
- Scout (shortbow, scimitar, reinforced leather, stealth)
- Assassin (the generic one should be fine)
- Commander (armed like scimitar infantry)
- Mubarizun commander (armed like a mubarizun)
- Beduin leader (armed like a beduin raider)

I also have considered the following:
- Some capital only H3 priest
- Mystic (1S, 1H, stealthy, sacred, possibly a spy?)
- Some sort of scholar (= researcher) unit might suite quite well. I reckon it's either mystic or scholar though. Could be capital only.
- Some other chainmail armored cavalry unit
- A camel rider is an intriguing idea, but what purpose does it serve? Worse cavalry with wasteland survival isn't really a good enough niche to be worth it in most cases, and I think most if not all units deserve wasteland survival anyway. The EA version of this nation could have less horses and more camels as a theme of horses being rare though.
- Grand Vizier might be a capital only unit. Depends on how powerful the nation will end up being. The main mages won't be sacred, so that'll make them less powerful anyway though.
- Mubarizun are probably capital only, atleast if they're good enough. I might also call them with some other name, but this name shall suit for the time being.
- I am not happy with the magic paths of the two mages, but it's pretty hard to figure out what'd suit well. Current setup would probably make viziers too useless in combat.

Should the beduins be stealthy by the way? If so, should they have regular leather instead of reinforced leather? I'm a bit in between.

I did decide I'll make scimitars instead of using falchions. I guess they'll have the same stats as a longsword. That'll increase the survivability of sword infantry too.

[Lurker_at_Threshold]

The capital only H3 priest could be named a mufti. If you could individually hijack a nations option for a unique profit, while still keeping them playable, the dwarf smith could be a good option.

I'd imagine that Vizier's would have some combat utility stemming from the weak evocations, particularly fire combined with aim. Although forging additional boosters could be difficult.

If you would want to improve magical diversity you could always a recruitible everywhere magician with a crap shoot of elemental magic (FAWE)or another with minor death, and a chance at an elemental path.