View Full Version : comment
This is a comment about the game could have been more realistic. The strongest european armies in the game should be slightly stronger than the strongest asian armies. As this was true in history. For all those who think that the asians were better can read "carnage and culture" by victor davis hanson that shows how the europeans were stronger.
the game should have more complexed castles ( concentric) and more siege weapons and methods.
Illuminatus!
03-02-2005, 00:18
This is a comment about the game could have been more realistic...As this was true in history. For all those who think that the asians were better can read "carnage and culture" by victor davis hanson that shows how the europeans were stronger.
Learn more about logic, reasoning, and presentation (and a bit of common sense) before you make claims without even providing 1) your own summary 2) a link or 3) some quotes from the text itself.
The strongest european armies in the game should be slightly stronger than the strongest asian armies.
Historically, guerilla warfare and "unconventional" tactics (which the Mongols, the Huns, the Magyars, etc. used) have almost always won, and the variable involved that allows for exceptions is not any one or more particular timeframes (such as, for example, the Rennaissance or the 19th century), but rather the individual circumstances of each conflict.
Learn more about logic, reasoning, and presentation (and a bit of common sense) before you make claims without even providing 1) your own summary 2) a link or 3) some quotes from the text itself.
Historically, guerilla warfare and "unconventional" tactics (which the Mongols, the Huns, the Magyars, etc. used) have almost always won, and the variable involved that allows for exceptions is not any one or more particular timeframes (such as, for example, the Rennaissance or the 19th century), but rather the individual circumstances of each conflict.
I have just posted this to start a conversion to it. I dont need your to condem it like this.
Webmaster
03-02-2005, 16:51
easy dudes!
dsj just presented his toughts in order to discuss them. so it's no need to "attack" him, illuminatus.
sure, some kind of "proof" for some of the "facts" would be nice. but we have a board where the freedom of speech is high value. so, start arguing with him.
from my side i can only add, KoH is game which should entertain the user in a mediaval world. KoH never claimed to be realistic
Picotrain
04-02-2005, 05:19
While Mr. Webmaster is here, could I just ask if anybody is continuing to work on KoH?
FrankishKnight
04-02-2005, 05:59
I have just posted this to start a conversion to it. I dont need your to condem it like this.
Right...so you post a message/statement, without wanting people to fight your statement?
I'm betting 10000 dollars this guy is George W. Bush.
to support discussion about realism and fight between "european" and "asian" cavalry instead of insulting or arguing...
When the field was open, "european" cavalry had not a big chance. It was many times described in medieval chronicles, that crusader heavy cavalry was attacked by light and fast horse archers using tactic shoot(hit) and run and they were too slow to ba able to any counteraction. They, however, didn't suffer significant losses (but did some). But they had one problem, they had to carry always their armour - about or over 20kilograms - and couldn't take it off, because enemy was always close. So after a halfday the knights and also their horses were simply too tired to fight. This happened during whole third crusade's trip through Asia Minor and everybody knows what happened with this such large contingent. Yes, Barbarossa has died, but his troops were already very tired and weakened, so it was very natural that most of them returned home from Kilikia and Antioch.
When the field was not open and "european" cavalry caught "asians" in some trap where there was no escape, it was sure that heavy cavalry won.
Some examples of battles between "european" and "asian" cavalry: Mantzikert(1071), Myriokefalon(1176), Hattin(1187), Kalka River(1223), Legnica(1241). I guess you know who had won: Seljuks, Sallahaddin, Mongols, Mongols. Huh, no "europeans" :beek:
PS:I guess that byzantine cavalry could be thought as "european" at Mantzikert and Myriokefalon, since in those times Byzantine emp. was already using feudal-pronoi system
Webmaster
04-02-2005, 09:52
While Mr. Webmaster is here, could I just ask if anybody is continuing to work on KoH?
right now there are no plans, i am sorry ;(
so the only people that work on KoH are me, Angryminer, Diablo etc. members of this forum :sad:
Webi, could you ask Frujin to help us a bit. I asked him for a help with one issue, but he didn't answered yet :sad:
Webmaster
04-02-2005, 12:01
sure i can ask him, but he is busy with the new project, i guess
can some1 tell me in wich topic can i find answer about where i can change unit,buildings and other things stats because after translation i want to make mode :)
Coffeemilk_Q
04-02-2005, 16:19
This is a comment about the game could have been more realistic. The strongest european armies in the game should be slightly stronger than the strongest asian armies. As this was true in history. For all those who think that the asians were better can read "carnage and culture" by victor davis hanson that shows how the europeans were stronger.
Realism is nice but it has its limits... MAking a game 2 realistic spoils the gameplay, after all it must remains a game, so as a developer u must make decisions. That these decisions do not always serve the historical facts is something u can't avoid.
Right...so you post a message/statement, without wanting people to fight your statement?
I'm betting 10000 dollars this guy is George W. Bush.
I said that I didn't need him to insult me about it. And your language isn't polite either. I'm not bush, so the next time you make bet you should think about your chances. And for the asian victories you have to look at the number of troops involved. The mongols outnumbered the europeans by a lot at Legnica and sajo. The same thing with the crusades. Europe didn't have enough troops at the holy land to fight the arabs. John france's western warfare in the age of the crusades talks about this. And again, carnage and culture explains how the europeans were more powerful than the asians.
to support discussion about realism and fight between "european" and "asian" cavalry instead of insulting or arguing...
When the field was open, "european" cavalry had not a big chance. It was many times described in medieval chronicles, that crusader heavy cavalry was attacked by light and fast horse archers using tactic shoot(hit) and run and they were too slow to ba able to any counteraction. They, however, didn't suffer significant losses (but did some). But they had one problem, they had to carry always their armour - about or over 20kilograms - and couldn't take it off, because enemy was always close. So after a halfday the knights and also their horses were simply too tired to fight. This happened during whole third crusade's trip through Asia Minor and everybody knows what happened with this such large contingent. Yes, Barbarossa has died, but his troops were already very tired and weakened, so it was very natural that most of them returned home from Kilikia and Antioch.
When the field was not open and "european" cavalry caught "asians" in some trap where there was no escape, it was sure that heavy cavalry won.
Some examples of battles between "european" and "asian" cavalry: Mantzikert(1071), Myriokefalon(1176), Hattin(1187), Kalka River(1223), Legnica(1241). I guess you know who had won: Seljuks, Sallahaddin, Mongols, Mongols. Huh, no "europeans" :beek:
PS:I guess that byzantine cavalry could be thought as "european" at Mantzikert and Myriokefalon, since in those times Byzantine emp. was already using feudal-pronoi system
For hattin, the crusaders didn't have water for so many days. they were at a severe disadvantage plus their long deployment ranges from europe while saladin was fighting at home. And for the battle with the mongols, against the polish and hungarians the europeans were outnumbered as at hattin and none of the victories had been easy for the mongols. Batu blamed subutai for the high loss. I don't know too much about the byzantines.
the knightly sword
04-02-2005, 21:19
its not a matter of armies . its a question of =diciplin, morale . they are the highest prioties in combat . the crusader armies wasent so confident on asian territory. they maybe was better equipt but that didnt help . with 20+ kilos armours in a desert isnt something to bear on that killing climate , the asians was preperd and had well formed tactics which was good in the long run . if i could give a advice to these dumb headed crusaders that would be = dont ever underastimate your enemies , even the weakest can achive things that wasent expected . i think you should think a little .
For hattin, the crusaders didn't have water for so many days. they were at a severe disadvantage plus their long deployment ranges from europe while saladin was fighting at home. And for the battle with the mongols, against the polish and hungarians the europeans were outnumbered as at hattin and none of the victories had been easy for the mongols. Batu blamed subutai for the high loss. I don't know too much about the byzantines.
yes, but do you think that if "europeans" outnumbered mongols at Legnica, they would have a chance? I described tactics which doesn't depend on number of soldiers, but movability. It's not important if 2000 or 5000 heavily armoured knights can't take their armour off while 2000 or 1000 light and fast horse archers shoot on them. The larger the army was, the lower the morale was, especially when talking about knights!
To compare it, why heavily armoured armies are not able to defeat small guerilla troops?
It'S about different kind of fighting. Each cavalry was good for anbother kind of battles. You can't say "europeans" were better in any conditions or "asians" were better in any conditions. In some conditions(tight man-to-man fight) it was sure that european heavy cavalry won. In free and very movable fight it was sure that light archer cavalry wins.
Like in mountain terrain small local bandits will always win over more numerous and better armoured heavy army (with heavy cavalry or tanks)
when feudal cavalry was totally destroyed by almost imobile welsh archers(when french army outnumbered them heavily), mobile mongolian or turkish cavalry with much better bows(!!) could do that too
the knightly sword
05-02-2005, 00:19
:go: :go: well i totally agree with elvain .
yes, but do you think that if "europeans" outnumbered mongols at Legnica, they would have a chance? I described tactics which doesn't depend on number of soldiers, but movability. It's not important if 2000 or 5000 heavily armoured knights can't take their armour off while 2000 or 1000 light and fast horse archers shoot on them. The larger the army was, the lower the morale was, especially when talking about knights!
To compare it, why heavily armoured armies are not able to defeat small guerilla troops?
It'S about different kind of fighting. Each cavalry was good for anbother kind of battles. You can't say "europeans" were better in any conditions or "asians" were better in any conditions. In some conditions(tight man-to-man fight) it was sure that european heavy cavalry won. In free and very movable fight it was sure that light archer cavalry wins.
Like in mountain terrain small local bandits will always win over more numerous and better armoured heavy army (with heavy cavalry or tanks)
when feudal cavalry was totally destroyed by almost imobile welsh archers(when french army outnumbered them heavily), mobile mongolian or turkish cavalry with much better bows(!!) could do that too
The asians do not have the firepower that the english had. The composite recurve bows only can shoot far but can't penetrate the european armour.(at least not at a reasonable range.) Both the crossbow and the longbow are more effective than the composite bows. The europeans were much better protected than the asians, which didn't have large amounts of armour for every soldier to wear. Large and heavily armoured armies did defeat small moblie armies in many occasions. When heavily armoured europeans were defeated by the asians, they were usually outnumbered and did slaughter a lot of asians. Like at nicopolis, the whole european army had 30000 while the ottoman turkish had 130000. The ottoman losses were 60000, twice the size of the whole european army. At poitiers the frankish army had as many as the arabs had and defeated the arabs easily. The saracen bows and horses didn't have much effect against the european mail in the 8th century. In large battles the ottomans usually had a lot more troops than the europeans. That was why they succeeded in taking a large part of eastern europe who was inferior to western europe at the end of the middle ages. At the battle of mohacs the ottomans had twice as many in number than the hungarians did. And the losses of the two armies were about equal. If the polish had as many as the mongols did they would have won. The polish did inflict large casulaties among the mongols and the mongols didn't use their faint retreat as it dosen't always work. It was only when the mongols used their gas that smoked the whole field did they prevail over the polish. And the smoke was a one shot tactic. Once you use it you the enemy is almost immune to it because the secreat is revealed. That's why the mongols never used it again in europe.
At poitiers the frankish army had as many as the arabs had and defeated the arabs easily. The saracen bows and horses didn't have much effect against the european mail in the 8th century.sorry. If you really believe that so called "battle of poitiers"(732) realy was a battle that changed fate of Europe, I can't discuss with you historical battles.
It is proved that it was a meeting of two "army bands", saracen bandit band, looting in Poitou defeated by strong frankish army (which was on a way to defeat duke of Aquitaine). They met each other by chance in mist and franks killed saracen leader by chance, so saracens ran away. If you really think it was breaking point of european hitory, I must laugh at you. It was not power of frankish arms that made it so important, but their political and ideological influence :smile:
Large and heavily armoured armies did defeat small moblie armies in many occasionscould you give me some examples?
I like the theory that Mongols didn't invade Europe for second time because their victory in Legnica wasn't as decisive as they expected and because they revealed their tactic. I always thought it was because of wars of succession in mongol empire and division of it :biggrin:
btw: do you think it could be taken as equal? one heavily armoured knight and one light armoured horse archer? of course that Mongols outnumbered europeans-their soldierswere cheaper.
would you consider a tank against 10 foot soldiers with kalashnikov as equal? or even as advantage on side of kalashnikovs? but if you count expenses on one feudal knight/2cavalry archers, the final number may be equal, as in battles you gave as example of "european success"
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.