I think it might be good to start adding in 2nd UU's. What I am aiming for here is to have the Western civs have a unit that replaces the Horse Archer so that they don't recruit horse archers and have eastern civs have a unit which replaces the knight so they don't recruit western knights.

Byzantium=Kataphraktoi (Knight)
Turks=Qapikulu (Knight)
Armenia=Aspet (Knight)
Egypt=Tawashi Cavalry (Knight)
Arabs/Abbasids=Abna Infantry (Foot Knight)
France=Gendarmes? (Horse Archer)
England=Norman Cavalry (Horse Archer)
Italians=Neapolitan Barons (Horse Archer)
Spanish=Jinetes (Horse Archer)
Moors=Bedouin Camel Warriors (Knight)
Germans=Imperial (or Gothic) Knights (Horse Archer)
Tatars/Mongols=Heavy Horse Archers (Knight)
Kievan Rus=Boyars (Knight)
Poland=??? (Horse Archer)
Hungary=Hungarian Knights (Knight)
Crusaders=Turkopoles (Horse Archer)
Khazars=Arsiyah (Knight)

Feel free to make more suggestions.

Moors - Corsair or Barbary Pirate(replaces Galleon, no ocean, but very fast Galley type, withdrawl promotion free) (Kvetch I think is its usual name...I'd have to look it up)

Saxony - Saxon Thegn, replaces vassal

Scotland - I think that Highlander should be renamed Clansman, and Highlander should be a maceman replacement (this better fits its historical time of appearance).

Italy - Italian Militia (I have an Osprey booklet devoted to this unit... if you are familiar with those books, they're excellent sources for unit ideas).

Althoough these don't meet your expressed goal of replacing knight/horse archer... still some ideas I've had kicking around.

Cataphract might be better as a vassal replacement, considering how early they appear historically... although replacing the horse archer does fit the timeline better than as a knight replacement.

Another one... Arab or Egyptian... Dhow could replace Medieval Galley, but have ocean travel allowed.

Just a thought. For egypt, maybe a sudanese mercenary infantry? I know the arabs had sudanese in their armies and it would make sense for egypt given that south of there is sudan.

For france, gendarmes were heavy cavalry that appeared in the early renaissance, maybe a burgundian knight or something.

For moors maybe instead of bedouins, berbers or tuareg as they were the locals and I think bedouins were in egypt and middle east.

great ideas, but where the heck are the unit graphics coming from and whos going to do the balencing testing?

I can get some of the units done, but I'm not all that great at making new units and a lot of things that would use new models could be challenging.

For France, since the mod ends in 1500 I thought Gendarmes could be okay, though it is pushing it a bit. Burgundian Knights I don't like because they aren't French, they are Burgundian.;) About the Kataphraktoi, Cataphracts stayed in use until the severe weakening of the Byzantines. They may have appeared early in history but they were always almost unmatched by any other type of cavalry unit, which is why they should replace knight. Also I think there already exists a cataphract unit somewhere in the Unit forum. I think that all of these that I have now are good, except I could use better ones for France and the Moors.

For France, since the mod ends in 1500 I thought Gendarmes could be okay, though it is pushing it a bit. Burgundian Knights I don't like because they aren't French, they are Burgundian.;) About the Kataphraktoi, Cataphracts stayed in use until the severe weakening of the Byzantines. They may have appeared early in history but they were always almost unmatched by any other type of cavalry unit, which is why they should replace knight. Also I think there already exists a cataphract unit somewhere in the Unit forum. I think that all of these that I have now are good, except I could use better ones for France and the Moors.

After the cataphracts came the pronoiars, which I think came in the komnenian dynasty. There is a cataphract coming with BtS, so you know...;)

I'll let you know if I find anything decent on the moors.

I agree Cataphract is the unit we need for the Byzantines... from some "fiction" I've read, they were also very good with the bow (ideas borrowed from their opponents, the Parthian/Persians). They could alternately replace the horse archer, if some rational is needed for such.

It just irks me a little, that as knight replacements they'd start so much later than historically. Ideally, they really ought to replace vassals... perhaps the unit, rather than increasing strength or other characteristics to make it a powerful base unit, should be given free promotions instead, so on upgrade they maintain much of their power.

One thing I'd like to see them have, is contrary to other mounted units, give them bonuses on defense.

As for the Moors, I really think a naval unit that I'd suggested might be good, it is a ketch, by the way. A Corsair or Barbary pirate would be an interesting unit... Barbary Pirate could even be a melee unit, rather than a ship, if that was what one wished.

Oh, and for Turkey, perhaps a cannon unit might be good... Siege Cannon, perhaps.

I agree Cataphract is the unit we need for the Byzantines... from some "fiction" I've read, they were also very good with the bow (ideas borrowed from their opponents, the Parthian/Persians). They could alternately replace the horse archer, if some rational is needed for such.
No, the only nation that ever used Cataphract Archers was antique Armenia, during the Roman/Parthian eras, and I highly doubt the Byzantines would use it if the Parthians themselves didn't use that. I'm not sure I understood exactly what you are trying to say. Cataphract as a horse archer replacement? That wouldn't be good because Byzantines did use Horse Archers.

It just irks me a little, that as knight replacements they'd start so much later than historically. Ideally, they really ought to replace vassals... perhaps the unit, rather than increasing strength or other characteristics to make it a powerful base unit, should be given free promotions instead, so on upgrade they maintain much of their power.
In Total War, the Kataphraktoi is a late era elite powerhouse for the Byzantines. The Pronoiai (can't spell it) are medium/heavy cav which appear a bit earlier. Cataphracts were also hired by many Eastern civs (Khwarizmian mercenary cataphracts) in the late era.

One thing I'd like to see them have, is contrary to other mounted units, give them bonuses on defense.
Nakharar already gets this type of a bonus, but perhaps a new promotion could be added, like Heavy Armor, which only certain units get and they receive defense bonuses. Like the Cataphract's armor will give it a defense bonus (duh).;)

As for the Moors, I really think a naval unit that I'd suggested might be good, it is a ketch, by the way. A Corsair or Barbary pirate would be an interesting unit... Barbary Pirate could even be a melee unit, rather than a ship, if that was what one wished.
For the Moors I am drawing up a blank, all I can think of is Camel Warriors.

Oh, and for Turkey, perhaps a cannon unit might be good... Siege Cannon, perhaps.
Well, I was thinking of something to replace a knight, and heavy Ottoman Qapikulus are perfect for this job. The siege bombard was really only a one time weapon made by a Hungarian siege engineer, so I don't like it. Perhaps a Sipahi as well. Or Turkomans...

When we move to BTS, we can always use a Unique Building of some sort which would give extra artillery promotions to give the Turks an artillery advantage, if it comes to that.

The books I referenced were a series by David Drake... it is a scifi series featuring an alternate history (Belisarius is the main character). I recall that the bowmanship of the Cataphracts in that series was integral to their superiority as fighters. Despite it being a work of fiction, the author is a PHD in Byzantine History, so it does carry a little weight.

Of course, citing a work of fiction as a source leaves a lot to be desired :). I'll see what I can come up with, otherwise, as for sources.

Regardless of their bowmanship, I don't doubt they were used more in the role of Heavy Armour than anything, so it is obviously quite a stretch to make them horse archers.

A good viking UU might be the Hersir, as a swordsman replacement, perhaps with Amphibious promotion.

This wiki article has some interesting things to say... it seems archery use by Cataphracts was fairly widespread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract

This entry goes into more detail on tactics...

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Medieval/war/ByzantineBattleTactics.html

Here is the most relevant part...



Cavalry formations and tactics

The Byzantine cavalrymen and their horses were superbly trained and capable of performing complex maneuvres on the drill field and the battlefield alike. While a proportion of the Cataphrats (Kataphractos or Clibanophori) appear to have been lancers or archers only, most had both bows and lances and were equally deadly with either. Their main tactical unit was the Numerus (Also called at times Arithmos or Banda) of 300-400 men. The equivalent to the old Roman Cohort or the modern Battalion, the Numeri were usually formed in lines 8 to 10 ranks deep, making them almost a mounted Phalanx. The Byzantines recognized that this formation was less flexable and more cumbersome for cavalry than infantry, but found the trade off to be acceptable in exchange for the greater physical and psychological advantages offered by depth.

As with the infantry, the Cataphracts adapted their tactics and equipment in relation to which enemy they were figthting. But in the standard deployment, four Numeri would be placed around the infantry lines. One on each flank with one on the right rear and another on the left rear. Thus the cavalry Numeri were not only the flank protection and envelopement elements, but the main reserve and rear guard as well.

The Byzantines usually preferred using the cavalry for flanking and envelopement attacks, instead of frontal assaults, and almost always preceded and supported their charges with arrow fire. The front ranks of the numeri would draw bows and open up on the enemy's front ranks, then once the foe had been sufficiently weakened, they would draw their lances and charge. The back ranks would follow, drawing their bows and firing ahead as they rode. This highly effective combination of missile fire with shock action, put their opponents at a dangerous disadvantage- If they closed ranks to better resist the charging lances, they would make themselves more vulnerable to the bows' fire, but if they spread out to avoid the arrows, then the lancers would have a much easier job of breaking their thinned ranks. Many times the arrow fire and start of a charge were enough to cause the enemy to run or rout without the need to close or melee.

A favorite tactic when confronted by a strong enemy cavalry force, involved a feigned retreat and ambush. The Numeri on the flanks would charge at the enemy horsemen, then draw their bows, turn around and fire as they withdrew (the Parthian Shot). If the enemy horse did not immediately give them chase, they would continue harassing them with arrows until they did. Meanwhile the Numeri on the left and right rear would be drawn up in their standard formation facing the flanks and ready to attack the pursuing enemy as they crossed their lines. The foes would be forced to stop and fight this new unexpected threat, but as they did so, the flanking Numeri would halt their retreat, turn around and charge at full speed, lances at the ready, into their former pursuers. The enemy, weakened, winded and now caught in a vice between two mounted phalanxes, would break, with the Numeri they once pursued now chasing them. Then the rear Numeri, who had ambushed the enemy horse, would move up and attack the now unprotected flanks in a double envelopement. This tactic is similar to what Julius Caesar did at Pharsalus in 48 BC when his allied cavalry acted as bait to lure the superior horse of Pompey into an ambush by the six elite cohorts of his reserve "Forth line". The Arab and Mongol cavalries would also use variations of it later to great effect, when confronted by larger and more heavily armed mounted foes.

When the Byzantines had to make a frontal assault against a strong infantry position, the wedge was their preferred formation for charges. The Cataphract Numerus formed a wedge of around 400 men in 8 to 10 progressively larger ranks. The first three ranks were armed with lances and bows, the remainder with lance and shield. The first rank consisted of 25 soldiers, the second of 30, the third of 35 and the remainder of 40, 50, 60 ect. adding ten men per rank. When charging the enemy, the first three ranks fired arrows to create a gap in the enemy's formation then at about 100 to 200 meters distance from the foe, the first ranks shifted to their kontarion lances, charging the line at full speed followed by the remainder of the battalion. Often these charges ended with the enemy infantry routing, at this point infantry would advance to secure the area and allow the cavalry to briefly rest and reorganize themselves.

When facing opponents, such as the Vandals or the Avars with strong heavy cavalry, the cavalry were deployed behind the heavy infantry who were sent ahead to engage the enemy. The infantry would attempt to open a gap in the the enemy formation for the cavalry to charge through.

byzantine used horse archer until about the 900's, after that there horse archers ability droped of considerably, then after manzikert there abilities as mounted archers droped of considerably. i heartly recomend the book: warfare in the middle ages. dont remember the author, but it has very good info.

Byzantium=Kataphraktos (Knight) cataphract already made
Turks=Qapikulu (Knight) not made, would be a slightly reskinned cataphract
Armenia=Aspet (Knight) not made, would be a reskinned knight
Egypt=Tawashi Cavalry (Knight) not made, would be difficult to make
Arabs/Abbasids=Abna Infantry (Foot Knight) not made
France=Gendarmes? (Horse Archer) could use one of the many French knights
England=Norman Cavalry (Horse Archer) not made
Italians=Neapolitan Barons (Horse Archer) not made
Spanish=Jinetes (Horse Archer) not made, would be javelin cavalry
Moors=Bedouin Camel Warriors (Knight) slight reskin of camel archer
Germans=Imperial (or Gothic) Knights (Horse Archer) made in DB
Tatars/Mongols=Heavy Horse Archers (Knight) dunno
Kievan Rus=Boyars (Knight) unmade
Poland=??? (Horse Archer) ??/
Hungary=Hungarian Knights (Knight)recolored knight, unmade

I changed some from the first post. Poland's UU is now ??? and Egypt's has been changed to Tawashi Cavalry.

I personally like the idea of a second UU for each civ, but I think the sole goal of replacing horse archers with knight types, and knight types with horse archers for respective civilizations is overly restrictive in 2nd UU choice. I'd rather see a second UU slot used for units that round out the civ with units that really could have been the primary UU but didn't quite make the cut for whatever reason. I've mentioned a few in this post.

Rather than a 2nd UU used for this, in my view, housekeeping chore, I'd prefer that horse archers and knights be disallowed totally for those civs for which they'd be historically inaccurate (similar to what was done for longboat/medieval galley). And we use the UU's to add to the particular civs flavor.

Or we can add a 3rd UU, I suppose, but I think that would be going overboard.

Some of the UU's you mention would still be exellent UU's, in which case, then they would replace units as you specified.

so that is why as the italian states i couldnt build longboats even though i could build lateen galleys! makes sense, but still, where are the images going to come from and who is going to do the balence testing?

where are the images going to come from and who is going to do the balence testing?
Head Serf has talent in both of these areas, but if he needs help I'd be glad tolend a hand, even though I am already devoted to at least ten other project right now since I am on vacation.:cool:

Looking at the UU list, again, I see that there are something like 9 more Knight UUs proposed and 7 more horse archer UUs. This in addition to those already having been created.

This brings to mind another concern of mine regarding using UUs to get rid of horse archer/knights for nonhistorical civs. It means many civs will have UUs arriving at the same times. It sort of belies the purpose of a UU, that being to my mind, giving the civ some sort of strategic advantage for a short period of time. If so many civs have almost identical UUs arrive simultaneously, they become not so much UUs, as flavour units. This can be combated somewhat by imaginative unit creation, but nevertheless, it will create a bit of sameness amongst the civs, and take away a bit from strategy. If you don't want some civs to have horse archers or knights, just make them unbuildable by those civs, at least it many cases. This is my humble opinion.

Nevertheless, I do like the Jinettes for the Spanish and Cataphracts for Byzantium, as well as a some of the others.

Looking at the UU list, again, I see that there are something like 9 more Knight UUs proposed and 7 more horse archer UUs. This in addition to those already having been created.

This brings to mind another concern of mine regarding using UUs to get rid of horse archer/knights for nonhistorical civs. It means many civs will have UUs arriving at the same times. It sort of belies the purpose of a UU, that being to my mind, giving the civ some sort of strategic advantage for a short period of time. If so many civs have almost identical UUs arrive simultaneously, they become not so much UUs, as flavour units. This can be combated somewhat by imaginative unit creation, but nevertheless, it will create a bit of sameness amongst the civs, and take away a bit from strategy. If you don't want some civs to have horse archers or knights, just make them unbuildable by those civs, at least it many cases. This is my humble opinion.

Nevertheless, I do like the Jinettes for the Spanish and Cataphracts for Byzantium, as well as a some of the others.
True. Perhaps we could make the base unit Early Cavalry and then have the knight replace it for western civs and the HA replace it for the Eastern civs? That seems good. (but then the Arabs and Moors don't have HAs, they have CAs (camel archers) if I am not mistaken... I guess we'll work it out somehow.;)

How's this sound:

We create parallel units to match both the Horse Archer and the Knight. Depending on the Civ in question, we allow or disallow either of the twin units.

For instance, for Horse Archer we could create a non-archer cavalry unit, Skirmisher or Irregular Cavalry, which civs without Horse Archers would have instead. This unit would certainly have differing graphic (sans the bow), and could have differing stats also (but would need to be balance). In this case, we would have to make certain it was also balanced with the Vassal as well. I would suggest str 5, no bonus vrs melee, -20 attack to cities, 3 movement and withdrawl of 20%. I'd also suggest no iron needed, and a cost of about 40. But I'm not a balancer.

Similarly, we could create a non-western Europe alternative to the heavily armoured knight, using the same tech requirements as for the knight. We could call it Noble or Feudal Cavalry. I'd suggest a lower strength and cost than the knight. But again, this would take some balancing.

Similarly, we might do the same with Foot Knight, designating a Nobal Foot or Heavy Swordsman unit for cultures where the heavily armoured noble was not the icon it was for the west Europeans.

This would be done in a way similar to what was done with the cog/medieval galley, lateen galley/longboat for naval assets.

I believe BTS would make this easier since I believe it allows alternate graphics for units based upon thier civ.

just give each "region" a uu. EG: like the eastern european nation an horse archer replacement uu like "stipendiarii" (mercenary knights) and get them a graphic wheich has a spear/sword and sheild but little armour .

just give each "region" a uu. EG: like the eastern european nation an horse archer replacement uu like "stipendiarii" (mercenary knights) and get them a graphic wheich has a spear/sword and sheild but little armour .

IMHO I don't think that term fits in Eastern europe as a latin word, what about a cuman horseman or steppe cavalry or alan mercenary??

Ajidica, I am not sure I quite understand what you are trying to say. I have thought it over extensively, and I think that just having a UU to replace the knight and horse arche for each civ is the only probable solution that will be feasible. We could have 3UU's to have a better balance later, but I think the 2nd UU's should only be used for historically accurate army composition.

My solution avoids having to do so many graphics. We would only need two more... one, a lightly or non-armoured cavalry with a sword or light lance, for the Skirmisher, the other a less-armoured unit than the knight, to reflect Eastern Feudal Cavalry or Nobility.

I really feel this is the easiest way.

If we were to go that way, we should avoid using a name for the unit that is too civ specific. After all, that's what we are getting away from when we want to redefine which civs have knights and horse archers.

That being said, whatever the rest of you decide is fine by me. I've stated my doubts about using so many UUs for this purpose. I would prefer the 2nd slot to be used to supplement the first UU (for instance an amph unit for the Vikings). Nevertheless, having said my piece, I'll support whatever way we decide to go.

I've been doing a bit of thinking... is there any reason that horse archers must necessarily be replaced by a mounted unit. They have Vassalage and stirrup prerequisites. Well, many units could have Vassalage as a possible prerequisite. For example, a Huscarle unit could be created to replace Horse Archer for some civ, and it would have the prerequisite Vassalage, so it would arrive at the same time (or previous to if Stirrup is not researched) as Horse Archer. That unit could be upgradeable to Foot Knight, for instance. So Horse Archer would be replaced by this melee unit.

Is there anything wrong with this idea. I'm unfamiliar with how UU's are installed.

Anyhow, if it works, then to some extent we can get away without creating just horse archer and knight type UUs to do this, but can be a bit more creative.

that sounds good, and if their is a problem, im sure if we ask nicely, kael will probaly help us out. Or we could simpley dissalow units for certiant civs or have replacement abilities. example: foot knight will be dissalowed or have a replacement for the Arab countries and magyar couldnt have vassals.

Medieval Scotland should not have a unique unit called the "highlander" ... a "Highlander" is a person from the Highlands of Scotland, and was not designated as such for the vast majority of this period. There is no zone called the "highlands" for most of the middle ages; Scotland is not the ethnically divided country they that it later became. The unit called "Highlander" in most military writings is not an Iron Age swordsman, but a soldier carrying a musket and sword, or in British imperial times, a rifle. Up until about 1300 a Gaelic speaking soldier was simply called a "Scot", if from north of the Forth, or a "Galwegian" if from the south west ... an that was because of his geoethnicity, not his role as a soldier.

Scottish Gaelic soldiers of certain kind were later called "caterans" or (when serving in Ireland), Galloglass. "Highlander" is a virtually underheard of designation in medieval Scotland: it should be cateran, Wild Scot, Mountain Scot, or simply Scot.

Options for Scottish UUs:

Between 1100 and 1350:
Schiltrom - this is an English word in later texts; it's use as a Proper Noun in modern writing is completely the work of modern historians, but nevertheless it has become famous
Galwegian - see wiki article on Battle of the Standard
Scot - This term is only used after the reign of David I and refers to the Gaelic speakers who dwell north of the Forth; it comes into use because many of the people writing the sources at this time distinguished between native Gaelic speakers and French or English immigrants whose origin made them militarily distinctive in Scotland.
Slogadach - lit. "leader of a host"; the head of the army of the bishopric of St Andrews in the 12th century was called the Slogadach.

Post-1350
Cateran - light infantry used in large numbers by most Scottish magnates from 1350 to 1450; the word literally means "peasant", and is etymologically identical to the Irish word "Kern".
Wild Scot - Ethnic name given by foreigners and Scoto-English to Gaelic speaking Scots, whether they lived in the Highlands or elsewhere in Scotland.

Note that "Clansman" is inappropriate and anachronistic for the medieval period. All Scottish society was strongly kin-based,;