Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
Simpleton
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by Simpleton » Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:32 am

I do not understand part of this list and wonder if there is a mistake.
Lithuanian Cavalry comes in two classes: Best Cavalry and Other Cavalry (which can be Light Horse as well).
All Cavalry are armed identically, as Light Spear (which can be thrown in the Light Horse version) and Mtd Swordsman.
However, when these troops dismount, something is wrong! The Best Cavalry dismount as Bow Swordsmen and the Other Cavalry dismount as Bow only.
Why are they Bowmen and how come they forgot their swords?
This army has an option to take Light Foot or Medium Foot unarmored, undrilled, Bow.
Why would any commander then dismount more costly troops to get what he can get loads of in the first place?
Shouldn't these guys be all Bow using or at least Bow* mounted to qualify as Bowmen on foot?
Shouldn't troops be swordsmen just like the Best Cavalry?

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by kevinj » Tue Jun 25, 2013 7:16 am

However, when these troops dismount, something is wrong! The Best Cavalry dismount as Bow Swordsmen and the Other Cavalry dismount as Bow only.
Why are they Bowmen and how come they forgot their swords?
This is because Fog classifies troops by how they fought, rather than by what weapons they carry. So, these cavalry fought using spears while mounted but did not use mounted archery. Giving the Best guys the Swordsman capability while dismounted suggests that they might have been better at hand-to-hand combat whilst on foot. There are plenty of other examples of troops who carry a weapon but don't get a capability for it because it doesn't match their normal fighting style, such as Mongols/Turks/Ghilmen who all might carry lances but fight as mounted archers not lancers.
Why would any commander then dismount more costly troops to get what he can get loads of in the first place?
It's allowed by the lists because it was done historically, but I agree that it's not an option you'd normally choose unless, for example, the terrain was unsuited to cavalry tactics. Most dismounting options are like this, although there are exceptions like the Early Medieval Germans whose Average cavalry dismount as Superior.

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2983
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by grahambriggs » Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:05 am

What Kevin said. I suspect for this army they'll have consulted Matt heywood, see has website at http://www.warfareeast.co.uk/main/Lithu ... e%20Boyars and the section headed 'the retainers'. That says they used the bows when dimounted. Unfortunately, matt's bibliography dseems to have disappeared so unclear where he's got that from.

Bear in mind that the list are not onl;y there for people who want to squeeze out an optimal competition army. they can also be used as a guide to re-enactments if you don't have your own research.

viperofmilan
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:26 am

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by viperofmilan » Tue Jun 25, 2013 4:38 pm

Or, it could be a mistake :D

I get the whole design thing about it not being enough to carry a weapon to merit getting that capability. I can even accept that a bow capability can mysteriously appear on foot when it was absent on horseback. But it is hard to see how somebody who rates being a swordsman when sitting on a horse suddenly forgets how to use the thing once he is on foot.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22316
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by rbodleyscott » Tue Jun 25, 2013 5:07 pm

viperofmilan wrote:Or, it could be a mistake
But it isn't

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2983
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:22 am

viperofmilan wrote:Or, it could be a mistake :D

I get the whole design thing about it not being enough to carry a weapon to merit getting that capability. I can even accept that a bow capability can mysteriously appear on foot when it was absent on horseback. But it is hard to see how somebody who rates being a swordsman when sitting on a horse suddenly forgets how to use the thing once he is on foot.
Perhaps it's a cavalry sword that doesn't work as well when you're on foot? Or more likely there are accounts of them getting stiuck into the enemy with swords when mounted but on foot they just shot the arrows?

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8643
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by philqw78 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:16 am

Perhaps they were not very happy to fight melee when they dismounted, but were quite happy to do so on horseback.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

gozerius
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:32 am

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by gozerius » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:16 am

You do have the option of foregoing the mounted option altogether (or up to half, depending on period) and buying them simply as MF or LF unprotected bow.
Thracians
Classical Indians
Medieval
-Germans (many flavors), Danes, Low Countries
Burgundians
In progress - Later Hungarians, Grand Moravians

Simpleton
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by Simpleton » Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:11 pm

gozerius wrote:You do have the option of foregoing the mounted option altogether (or up to half, depending on period) and buying them simply as MF or LF unprotected bow.
That is one of my points, in an army that allows substitution of foot bowmen for cavalry, why would anyone dismount more expensive troops for the same troop type unless the swordsmen skill was included.

The website sited in the post above:http://www.warfareeast.co.uk/main/Lithu ... troduction is valid for the 1300-1500 list but is only somewhat valid here.

If troops are using a missle weapon as a secondary weapon, isn't this precisely why some troops have a "star" like Scottish Highlanders and Mayans? Thus Lithuanian Cavalry IMHO should be Bow* and the Light Horse should be Light Spear/Bow and drop the swordsman.

eldiablito
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:40 pm

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by eldiablito » Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:36 pm

...or how about French knights? They start off as lancer swordsmen and then dismount with heavy weapons...
...or how about late Swiss pikes? They wore armor that was arguably better than Norman milites, but the Swiss only get Protected and a mail shirt gets Armoured.

...or how about the English longbow who are swordsmen in the game, but sometimes they only had mallets for driving in their stakes...

...or why Vikings/Anglo-Danes/etc carried various weapons, but count as offensive spears?

This game is not trying to say, this unit had X, so therefore they get Y capability. This is confusing, but understandable. It is also harder to understand when the game designers use terminology that isn't quite exact to the troops' weapons. Just accept the terms to be written in the FoG language. Now Romans are melee weapon-type Alpha, but most knights get melee weapon-type Beta. Now look at the troop interactions from a mile high view. Did dismounted knights carry melee weapons that were really good against everything, but were vulnerable to mounted knightly charges? That sounds like "Heavy Weapons" to me.

Since I do not know about your specific troop type in particular, I will have to assume that your particular cavalry unit tended to shoot more when dismounting, but tended to get slaughtered when they got into melee.

Simpleton
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:25 pm

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by Simpleton » Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:36 pm

eldiablito wrote:...or how about French knights? They start off as lancer swordsmen and then dismount with heavy weapons...
...or how about late Swiss pikes? They wore armor that was arguably better than Norman milites, but the Swiss only get Protected and a mail shirt gets Armoured.

...or how about the English longbow who are swordsmen in the game, but sometimes they only had mallets for driving in their stakes...

...or why Vikings/Anglo-Danes/etc carried various weapons, but count as offensive spears?

This game is not trying to say, this unit had X, so therefore they get Y capability. This is confusing, but understandable. It is also harder to understand when the game designers use terminology that isn't quite exact to the troops' weapons. Just accept the terms to be written in the FoG language. Now Romans are melee weapon-type Alpha, but most knights get melee weapon-type Beta. Now look at the troop interactions from a mile high view. Did dismounted knights carry melee weapons that were really good against everything, but were vulnerable to mounted knightly charges? That sounds like "Heavy Weapons" to me.

Since I do not know about your specific troop type in particular, I will have to assume that your particular cavalry unit tended to shoot more when dismounting, but tended to get slaughtered when they got into melee.
Knights who dismount with Hvy Weapons are using their swords as 2 handed weapons. I feel Longbowmen swordsmen are probably wrong, but I am not an expert. Lots of troops are in my opinion incorrectly classified probably as a compromise.

However, I just do not understand a soldier who is a suitably capable swordsman mounted, but when he dismounts, he forgets how to use it. The "Better" ie Superior guys do not forget, but the average Joe's forget. This seems wrong. I encourage further comment.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8643
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by philqw78 » Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:01 pm

troops are classified to get the right game effect. Your blokes were rubbish off their horses so get classed as such.

Perhaps dismounting as poor bow swordsmen would not have worked as they would have lost any shooting battle too quickly
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by batesmotel » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:31 pm

Simpleton wrote: ...
Knights who dismount with Hvy Weapons are using their swords as 2 handed weapons. I feel Longbowmen swordsmen are probably wrong, but I am not an expert. Lots of troops are in my opinion incorrectly classified probably as a compromise.

However, I just do not understand a soldier who is a suitably capable swordsman mounted, but when he dismounts, he forgets how to use it. The "Better" ie Superior guys do not forget, but the average Joe's forget. This seems wrong. I encourage further comment.
It probably would have been clearer if the author's called the melee capability something more generic than sword, e.g. "effective melee weapons" or "side arms", so it wouldn't be identified as a particular type of weapon. Sword does have the advantage of succintness.

The category is intended to reflect the ability and effectiveness of troops to fight in melee where the weapons they are using don't justify weapon specific POAs like pikes, spears and heavy weapons do. In general later English longbowmen did seem willing to stand and fight stoutly, and were sell enough equipped with mauls, swords, club, etc, to allow them to do so. (Note that Welsh and early English longbowmen don't get sword capability to reflect that lesser ability and willingness to stand and fight.) Lithuanian LH and cavalry who dismount as bowmen without the sword capability presumably reflect that the dismounted troops remained effective as archers but generally were not as willing to stand and fight as English longbowmen and minority of other archers/crossbowmen who are classified as having sword capability.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2983
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Early Lithuanian and Samogitians (Oath of Fealty)

Post by grahambriggs » Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:28 pm

There's also an element of "do the sources mention it?" angle. If the only mention of dismounting is to shoot and not to mix it hand to hand, then it's quite likely that you won't get a sword when dismounted. The default type for foot archers is bow, no sword. The troops may have had a sword but if there's no evidence that they'd weigh in with it there's little chance that the list will give it to you

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”