psychology

[Bubino]

hello!

in unit showcase, in feudal knight's description, i've seen they are "too brave", and they could attack enemy without a specific order...

i like this feature, in my opinion it's a "psychological" quality very interesting!

now, my question is: there are other psychological qualities for other units? for example, a particular type of unit (like jannissaries or saracens) could hate templars...
or, in the opposite, a particular unit could has fear when fight against a specific unit...

:eek:

[Rnett]

I imagine a hate/fear factor could be incorporated with morale, but as for specifics, I dunno. :scratch:

[Angryminer]

Cavalrymen are slaughtered by pikemen. By being slaughtered their morale suffers 'a small' [ not to say giant ;) ] penalty and they run away.
Normal footmen are slaughtered by cavalry. By being slaughtered their morale goes down and they run away.
etc.
etc.

I guess you got what you want ;) .

Angryminer

[Bubino]

yes...

:D

[Khan Krum]

Great topic!
Here are some things I ponder:

-Janissaries are renowned for their extreme cruelty and high morale in history, will this be so in KoH (i.e. slaughtering villagers even when the enemy surrenders)

-Templars have shown great zeal in the Crusades (same like Janissaries vs Christians as you said), they were the last men that remained in the Arabic Peninsula after the defeat of the Christian Army, plus they appeared highly greedy - something against the rules of their Order that suggested living in poverty and expressing a moderate character, and they plundered many settlements (IMO they could go for the plunder if there is some near than join in the battle or at the least some of them). Plus some of them were really aroggant caused by their Order gaining power and even some political influence.

-Crusades - we all know that some of the "holy" crusaders didn't even reach the Holy Lands - same issue as some of the Templars - they plundered Christian realms on their way. So I'd like to see Crusaders who will follow their leaders if they are of enough high rank or rebell and act on their own when recieve orders from a less renowned warchief. And for the sake of good time we could also have Peasants joining :p

-Highlanders, who IMO should be available only in Scotland, could express hatred towards English government (or when in english boundaries rebell - I know, I know Wallace lived in an earlier age than the one at the start of the game, but still reasonable enough to me.

-Boyars - now I checked they were among the aristocracy of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom (not necessarily horsemen) and they started usurping the power of the throne - I know the chance of loyalists' rebellions, but will there be feudal separatism - weak kingdom thorn by wars and enemies - it's reasonable that Feudal Lords rebell (but only at highest level of difficulty)

[Finellach]

Originally posted by Khan Krum
-Crusades - we all know that some of the "holy" crusaders didn't even reach the Holy Lands - same issue as some of the Templars - they plundered Christian realms on their way. p

Yes thats the truth. Fourth Crusade actually never reached Jerusalem. The Crusaders didn't had money and means to sail to "Holy Land" so they asked Venetians, these of course(as always) took this chance and used them for plundering and conquering Croatian city of Zara(Zadar) for Venice. Not to mention the citizens in despair tried to show them this is a Christian city they are attacking, but nothing helped. This was not the end. They then proceded to Constantionople and sacked the maybe greates Christian city of that time, plundering it for Venice and for their own benefit. That was IMO the begining of the end for Byznatine empire.

[Bora]

its a bit the 180° different then today today are much moslem fanatics want to do tjhad against all the comeing from the western world, sepcially whn its from the u.s.

in the medieval the christians where like wild barbarians and the moslem where more "civilised" best example: the arabs, sarazen (whatever) had respected and saved christian church and religion, meanwhile the christs have plundered, killed and destroyed everything that was declared as enemy.

[Khan Krum]

Agree with you Bora!
Still talking about the Turks the matter appears to be different. They do not originate from a highly-cultural state as the saracens, and that's one of the reasons Janissaries were fanatics. Another one is that they are taught only or chiefly the military principals of the Islam and being taken as kids away from their parents caused them to grow straigth to the desire state of religious zealots.

[HexHammer]

Just a shame the Janissary military order, got whiped by their own goverment.

[Khan Krum]

It was reasonable to some extent. Because they used to live in barracks near the palace of the ruler and due their constant rise to power janissaries were at one point able to change the governors (sulthans - spelling???) of the coutry. And after a major rebellion they had to be put down at the start of the 19th century.

And consideting how they were "drafted" into this order it's more of a relief than a shame to me that someone put an end to this.

[HexHammer]

Yes it was nessesary, but still a shame, it was like the watchdogs in the WWII, they got too agressive, to just live as normal dogs after the war, so they also had to be whiped.

One of the reasons why the Janissaries, was such an elite force, was that they got promoted by merit, unlike the Europeans who got promoted by lineage.

[Khan Krum]

I don't think they were promoted by merit at all to the order - they were just christian children taken by force from their parents as a "blood tax", so entire generations were wiped. Still I agree they climbed in the order hierarchy concerning their qualities and expirience, which didn't stop them from being like their own severe masters who "recruited" them. Practicaly you get highly trained military units, something like that happened in the Early Frankish Empire as well - specially trained units, and something that continued to be a serious issue in the infantry for ages in a major part of Europe and some of the archery (not at the level of Janissaries but still unlike Highlanders, Vikings, Welsh Warriors). It was the knights that got positions just for being someone's heirs.
Besides, the Turks also have such soldiers that profited from lineage - Sipahi, who were initially just called for the times of war, but later became the moving unit of Turkish Feudal system. But they never got the privilegues the Janassary order recieved later, and just had to take on their own what they needed from the enslaved populace.
I think the position of a Janissary also got inherited around the 18th century, but that's a bit later than the period we discuss.
Anyway, I can't feel even a little bit of sorry for Janissaries falling apart (they got the rightful vengeance for what they did in the past), though I admit it was a highly effective strategy to keep down possible rebellions when you take most of the boys at this age and turn them into asketic and fanatic military force.

[HexHammer]

Uhmm I'm not saying "promoted by merit" when going from civilian to military, but once in the military, merit = gainig rank.

I saw a Discovery channel program, clearly stating that the Janissaries was promoted by merit, that be in the 1300, but I dunno if it was changed later.

[Khan Krum]

"Still I agree they climbed in the order hierarchy concerning their qualities and expirience"
On that I agree. But then they are profilated military order. It's similar to the way centurions were chosen in the Roman Legion at least during the time of Caesar.