Monastic orders and western tech

[TheDungen]

I think the monastic orders ought not to be western tech, wasn't part of the reason they lost that they refused to change with the times. They should also be blocked from the insta westernasation thing (because TO hold Danzig in 1444) but insta westernize (and go western units) when they reform (and perhaps if they secularize). The description of the early eastern units seems to fit the knightly orders perfectly as well as their continued reliance on cavalery

It'd also nerf them which right now is the right call.

 

[perhje]

I have to disagree with the reason about why they lost. It wasn't the the refusal of the change of time. Don't know anything about the livonian order and why they collapsed. But if you the history of both the knigts and TO you will see good reasons why things happened as they did. If you see at "the knights" you will see that throughout the period they was several times at war with the Ottoman and the barbary states which should be much stronger, but even thou they lost some battles they still managed to hold them of at Malta. A country of that size should been taken down easily by the ottomans. You must go to Napoleon to find the loss of Malta for them.

As for the TO you can't blame it on not catching up on the time when they was at war with Poland which was one of the strongest power in the early part of the period. The western parts where annexed by Poland and later the eastern parts where vassalised by the same country. With the protestant reformation the grandmaster converted and became the duke of prussia.

Both orders didn't fall to not catching up with time, but because some of the greatest powers in their time was fighting against them.

 

[TheDungen]

We'll I'm not sayng poland was any more modern than the TO during this era but the TO's continued reliance on heavy cavalery knights would place it in the eastern techgroup if you ask me.

As for the knights hospitallers I reckon they might keep western.

 

[perhje]

Firstly, remember that the pagans where people of the grand duchy of Lithuania which at the gamestart had been a part of Poland. Poland got Lithuania(or visa versa) at the same time as the great support from the outside went away, because no one to convert and that makes it more difficult to get a good reason for holy war. Also a marrige between the HRE and Poland made it so that the former guarantie wouldn't apply against Poland and with its biggest supporter gone the order lost its diplomatic defence. Yes they may be that they had outdated cavalry tactics, but thats how it often was in that time, it was shifting who had the supiority in mil-tech. Also i can't see how the lack of cavalry tactics would lead to the loss of marienburg.

But still it is somewhat weird with Poland in eastern tech while TO is in western and it may be better for their military traditions to be eastern.

 

[TheDungen]

Firstly, remember that the pagans where people of the grand duchy of Lithuania which at the gamestart had been a part of Poland. Poland got Lithuania(or visa versa) at the same time as the great support from the outside went away, because no one to convert and that makes it more difficult to get a good reason for holy war. Also a marrige between the HRE and Poland made it so that the former guarantie wouldn't apply against Poland and with its biggest supporter gone the order lost its diplomatic defence. Yes they may be that they had outdated cavalry tactics, but thats how it often was in that time, it was shifting who had the supiority in mil-tech. Also i can't see how the lack of cavalry tactics would lead to the loss of marienburg.

But still it is somewhat weird with Poland in eastern tech while TO is in western and it may be better for their military traditions to be eastern.

No their cavalery was excellent the problem was that they like all early eastern tech nations relied to much on the heavy cavalry charge, granted on reasing up on it I realise that it did not contribute to their failure agaisnt poland lithuania, because poland lithuania had the very same shortcomming. But had they survived it would eventually have become an issue, that's partly why they eventually reformed into the duchy of prussia.

But the point is that early on the eastern techgroup better represents the tactics of the orders and later on we don't know since in reality they reformed.

 

[Zelius]

No their cavalery was excellent the problem was that they like all early eastern tech nations relied to much on the heavy cavalry charge, granted on reasing up on it I realise that it did not contribute to their failure agaisnt poland lithuania, because poland lithuania had the very same shortcomming. But had they survived it would eventually have become an issue, that's partly why they eventually reformed into the duchy of prussia.

But the point is that early on the eastern techgroup better represents the tactics of the orders and later on we don't know since in reality they reformed.

But that's why they have Cavalry CA in TO's traditions, right?

Are you saying all Eastern tech nations should have lots of heavy cavalry?

And what about the Ottomans and their heavy use of huge artillery pieces?

 

[TheDungen]

Early eastern tech is dominated by heavy cavalery. Later eastern tech uses light cavalery but all across the board eastern tech relies more on cavalery than western tech does (as represented by that eastern tech only needs 2/5 infantery instead of western 1/2) . As for ottomans they are not eastern tech but anatolian tech (anatolian has 1/2 cav ratio like western).

And yes that's why they have cav CA in their ideas but in reality is was not that teuton knights were better but that they relied more on their knights, thus a greater proportion of their forces were knights (as the eastern techgroup would make sure).

As well as the orders needing a nerf and giving them eastern tech would do that.

 

[Zelius]

Early eastern tech is dominated by heavy cavalery. Later eastern tech uses light cavalery but all across the board eastern tech relies more on cavalery than western tech does (as represented by that eastern tech only needs 2/5 infantery instead of western 1/2) . As for ottomans they are not eastern tech but anatolian tech (anatolian has 1/2 cav ratio like western).

And yes that's why they have cav CA in their ideas but in reality is was not that teuton knights were better but that they relied more on their knights, thus a greater proportion of their forces were knights (as the eastern techgroup would make sure).

As well as the orders needing a nerf and giving them eastern tech would do that.

Well, I'd speculate that the Western nations also used heavy cavalry right up until firearms were effective enough to defeat them. They would have used a higher ratio if they could, but poorer cavalry tradition + more population to recruit infantry meant they didn't.

Plus the Swedish also had an incredibly high cavalry ratio (at least in the later part of the period) yet I don't think they should migrate to Eastern tech...

TO having more knights: Well I suppose that's because they were a Knightly Order and their (early) military consisted mostly of foreigners, including many knights? Maybe that's just a story, I'm no expert. Well I suppose they might be men-at-arms without actual knighthoods.

I don't see AI monastic orders surviving all that much, so nerf is unneeded in my opinion.

 

[TheDungen]

Well, I'd speculate that the Western nations also used heavy cavalry right up until firearms were effective enough to defeat them. They would have used a higher ratio if they could, but poorer cavalry tradition + more population to recruit infantry meant they didn't.

Plus the Swedish also had an incredibly high cavalry ratio (at least in the later part of the period) yet I don't think they should migrate to Eastern tech...

TO having more knights: Well I suppose that's because they were a Knightly Order and their (early) military consisted mostly of foreigners, including many knights? Maybe that's just a story, I'm no expert. Well I suppose they might be men-at-arms without actual knighthoods.

I don't see AI monastic orders surviving all that much, so nerf is unneeded in my opinion.

Actually crossbows made knights inefficient nearly a century before firearms showed up in europe, and a century after the firearms showed up in europe the crossbow was still a superior weapon in almost every respect. The reason they went for firearms was the moral effect of the sound on men and horses.
The crossbow changed the battlefields of europe, it allowed a peasent with minimal training to stand up to a fully armoured ad trained knight on almost equal odds. And you could train and equip a dozen crossbowmen for the price of a knight. In the east the crossbow never really caught on and they kept using medieval tactics (or not specifically they evolved in a diffrent direction from the medieval tactics, more towards light cavalery) until the firearm came into wider use.

And sweden should perhaps be eastern tech too, up until the military reforms of Carl XII. Sweden has always been culturally more connected to eastern europe, despite the westwashign of our hisotry we've been doing in the last century.

You speculate a lot on things where wikipedia could enlighten you.

And you don't see the ai monatic orders doing increadibly well? In my last three non monastic games the livonian order has conquered russia twice and the teutonic order all of the commonwealth (which didn't form a single time, not even the PU) once. Is it just me?

 

[Zelius]

You speculate a lot on things where wikipedia could enlighten you.

And you don't see the ai monatic orders doing increadibly well? In my last three non monastic games the livonian order has conquered russia twice and the teutonic order all of the commonwealth (which didn't form a single time, not even the PU) once. Is it just me?

I.... OK, Wikipedia. When I have time. Crossbows were good (but not supposed to be used against Christians; pope still had some gravitas before the Three Popes / Medici(?) selling of indulgences debacles), but the massed cavalry charge was still used decisively in a number of battles.

Well, I usually see TO broken if not totally annexed by Poland (even without PU), and Livonians killed by Muscovy / Sweden / Denmark (if somehow survived). LO has <100% province warscore cost so is sometimes full-annexed in one war.

Knights sometimes hang around Rhodes / spawn in Malta and nobody cares enough to attack them.

 

[TheDungen]

I.... OK, Wikipedia. When I have time. Crossbows were good (but not supposed to be used against Christians; pope still had some gravitas before the Three Popes / Medici(?) selling of indulgences debacles), but the massed cavalry charge was still used decisively in a number of battles.

Well, I usually see TO broken if not totally annexed by Poland (even without PU), and Livonians killed by Muscovy / Sweden / Denmark (if somehow survived). LO has <100% province warscore cost so is sometimes full-annexed in one war.

Knights sometimes hang around Rhodes / spawn in Malta and nobody cares enough to attack them.

Yeah I really don't care about the knights they never did anything anyway.

Yeah I've heard about the papal ban on crossbows but then again I also know that the italians and later the germans used them, a lot. I don't know how to reconcile those facts.

As for the cavarly charge, yes it was kept on being used but mostly because the knights were the ruling caste and they liked the idea. It wasnät efficient use of the money and over time that became more and more obvious. For a while before the pistol heavy cavalery would actually use small crossbows in addition to their charge weaponary.

Even after firearms they were used by people in conditions where early firearms couldn't be maintained, such as thieves. brigands and freedom fighters.

 

[Denkt]

Knights was used because they did win many many battles. Crossbow did not make knights useless because if it did then knights would soon ceased to exist but they did not. It took all the way to gunpowder to before that happened and even then a new heavy cavalry, cuirassier was developed.

Nations that are in the western tech group did make heavy use of cavalry, all they way to Napoleon and beyond so using cavalry did not mean technological backwardness. Cavalry was used because it was effective and useful.

 

[TheDungen]

Knights was used because they did win many many battles. Crossbow did not make knights useless because if it did then knights would soon ceased to exist but they did not. It took all the way to gunpowder to before that happened and even then a new heavy cavalry, cuirassier was developed.

Nations that are in the western tech group did make heavy use of cavalry, all they way to Napoleon and beyond so using cavalry did not mean technological backwardness. Cavalry was used because it was effective and useful.

Gunpowder weapons was up untill rifling worse than crossbows. And knights did cease to exist replaced by lighter forms of cavalery. But thye held on for a while because of that the existance of knights helped the nobles justify their own existance. As early as the 30 years wars there isn't a knight to be found. In fact the last major conflict to include knights was the HYW. After the battle of agincourt the amries of westenr europe began to replace knights with other troop types.
And there's a diffrence between heavy cavalery like currasiers and the battering ram heavy cavalery such as knights.

Cavalery was useful, fully armoured knights howevr wasn't, cavalery also was more and more used for specific roles, unlike during medieval times when they were the main fightign unit meant to charge and break the enemy lines, the vast majority of the soldiers in later eras came to be made up of infantery.