Do we know if there will be any new units?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Eagle Eye242, Aug 15, 2015.

  1. Foeurdr

    Foeurdr Moderator Staff Member

    Concerning what you propose Ftoomsh I would see it work really well if they introduced a map with river.
    A map with river would only allow small ship to sail and I think would have some passage where the soldier could cross by, some shallow water but who would prevent unit to fire making them more vulnerable to any force guarding the passage, it would also add a new dimension tactic as those shallow water would be key point you need to find, hence favorizing a most extensive scouting. I think it would go well with a pontoon bridge mechanic, which allow the player to create new ways and less vulnerable. The boats would be really pratical to patrol the river, help your men cross or tearing down an opponant bridge. barge would also have their use being more unpredictable as they could land anywhere but with a limited capacity compared to the two other means.

    Sorry, kind of forgot the original topic :oops:
     
  2. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    A gunboat is a new unit. A pontoon bridge is a new unit. :)
     
  3. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    I wait for ottoman nizam cedid, deli and polish towarzysze pancerni.
     
  4. Ftoomsh

    Ftoomsh Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately the Nizam-I Cedit Infantry might be a little past the time span of C1 and C3. They were not 18th C units but 19th C units. The Nizam-ı Cedit (from Arabic Nidhām al-Jadīd, meaning New Order) was a series of reforms not a military unit as such. But it makes sense to refer to Nizam-I Cedit Infantry. At a stretch, maybe the early Nizam-I Cedit reforms to 1807 might make the cut.

    Game-wise it is true that Turkey need a boost in the 18th C. I added an 18th C Janissary to Turkey in a rebalanced mod. But there was no historical justification for it as the Janissaries rather declined in the 18th C.

    Polish towarzysze pancerni is great cavalry unit and a chainmail knight. I had to look it up on Wikiepedia. Does Poland need another boss cavalry unit? ;)

    They could probably act as heavy horse in 17th C and a bit like Cuirassiers in 18thC. But why would you produce them when Poland can produce Polish Light Horse or Winged Hussars?
     
  5. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    Polish winged husars would be stronger but recruit little longer. :)

    Nizam cedid isn't 19 century. It was introduced by sultan Selim III in late XVIII century. I think that if Poland has XVIII century, Turkey should also has it. Ottomans were strong empire and in XVIII won wars with Russia and Persia. This XVIII century in Turkey should be also more expensive for example 80k food and 15k gold.
     
  6. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    I do not think that Ottoman Turkey needs advanced era in XVIII century in the game.
    They were outdated and Selim's reforms started too late in 1790s. There were only few Nizam-I-Cedid regiments and they did almost nothing at that time.

    Polish pancerni is interesting idea. They formed bulk of Polish cavalry in XVII century. However there are few troubles.

    Pancerni were called by this name from 1650s, earlier they were called cossacks or other lighlty armed cavalry, however they were not Cossacks.

    Pancerni were not heavy cavalry, that was in fact medium cavalry, very manouvrable and used for various purposes. They usually supported other units, but they also can fought separately or executed faraway and long raids.
    Polish army was famous from excelent cavalry units at that time.

    However Poland already has few XVII C. cavalry units in the game.
    GSC could add new unit or exchange Polish rider with Polish Pancerni.
     
  7. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    Nizam Cedid was in late XVIII but it was. There maybe were few regiments but it was. Is it hard to understand? And yes, Turkey need XVIII century because Tatars probably will be transfer to Crimea ( I think it will be ) and Turkey will be weak nation. Turkey is strong now because of janissary and Tatars who are the best together in battles. So if we want balanced game Turkey should has XVIII century also because there are historical facts to do it. It was empire and won wars in this century. Poland wasn't empire and hadn't military reforms but has XVIII century.

    Ps.
    Can you give me source where you found that nizam cedid infranty had only few regiments? Also what is few for you?
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2015
  8. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    Turkey in C1 game was strong enough and was great power in XVII century. However Tukey suffered with lot of troubles, they were outdated through all XVIII century. Selim's reforms started too late and they were not so impresive. Few Nizam-i-Cedid infantry regiments simply stayed in barracks. These units were too weak, finally were disbanded and cut into pieces by Janissaries in 1807.

    Ottoman army still based on Janissaries, Sipahis and other outdated troops. These units are presented in the game. Developers eventuallly could add Nizam-i-Cedid infantrymen for Turkey in the end.

    Polish army made several reforms and they were not so outdated. Do you know, for example that Polsih introduced muskets with bayonet in late XVII century, while Turks still used many old design weapons till the end of XVIII century.

    Your supposition that Poland was not empire in XVIII century is quite funny. Bavaria, Denmark, Netherland, Portugal, Piedmont, Saxony, Sweden or Venice also were not empires at that time. Howevwer all they can advanced in modern era in XVIII century.

    Turkey still was local empire, but they did not modernize their amry untill the end of XVIII century.
     
  9. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    Reforms started late but not too late. Started in 1789 and finally ended in 1861 year not 1807 year because year later reforms were still introduced. Can you give me source that there were only few regiments of nizam cedid ?
     
  10. condor_fly

    condor_fly Administrator Staff Member

    I don't see a problem in disappear tatars from Turkey units line, becouse an Ottoman nation has it own strong horsearchers tradition
    [​IMG][​IMG]
    The fanny is that tatars was one of the effective and professional warband in Ottomans cavalry, but the professional army of Crimea tatars Кhanat, where they come from, was mostly infantry with muskets and have only horse riders in hordes of the non professional warbands.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2015
    [PR]Ernest likes this.
  11. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    Selim's reforms started too late, there were only few Nizam-i-Cedit regiments created in 1790s and early 1800s.
    Problem was that they were disbanded, reforms were broken in 1807. There were Janissaries revolts and mutinies supported with strong conservative circles which did not want to see these reforms and Selim III was killed.

    Next Sultan try led next reforms. These sparked next mutinies and Janissaries were finally killed and disbanded in 1826. Then Sultan Mahmud II ordered new military reforms, but these are out of C3 game period isn't it.

    You could find sources by yourself at last that was you who proposed add Nizam-i-Cedid units for Turkey in the game.
    If you got some troubles, I could suggest try English wikipedia first. There are lot of information about Ottoman Empire, Turkish military and other aspects.
     
  12. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    Haha, Wikipedia is not good source of information. All people can write and edit it. No historic edit and take after it so it is not real information. You say that there were few regiments. Give me source. I don't see in your Wikipedia about it.
     
  13. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    Read these lazy boy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_military_reform_efforts
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selim_III
    Here you can find some other sources too.
     
  14. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    Lol according your links in 1807 year (year when reforms had been stopped) nizam cedid is 25000 where total was 67000. This is only few for you? This is about 40% of total army! This is much.
    So I wait for other links where are "few" nizam cedid :)
     
  15. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    Can you read with undestanding?
    The 1807 year was in XIX century!

    Selim's reforms were clear failure. Sultan started these reforms in 1790s, there were created only few regiments in XVIII century, next few in early XIX century. These Nizam-i-Cedid troops were trained in the European manner, but only few small units were used in real combats during Napoleon's campaigns in Middle East.

    First one Nizam-i-Cedid regiment was established c.a. 1794, second one in 1795 and third soon after.
    By 1801 there were probably 12 regiments raised. However Sultan soon reformed them in 1808 as Sekban-i-Cedid with of 6 regiments, each of 2 battalions. There also were few cavalry and artillery units trained in the European manner.

    Therefore Ottoman army nominaly could had 25,000 men in "reformed regiments" however Janissaries massacred these Sekban-i-Cedid units in late 1808. Do you understand this issue now?

    If you are so much interested in Nizam-i-Cedid reforms try find yourself more information. I'm not your tutor.
     
  16. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    History is serious exact science so don't write me probably. I don't want conjectures or speculations. You write that by 1801 was few regiments. I do not believe in empty words - science requires confirmation. If you put a argument, you have to give proof of it's rightness. I look forward to source in which is written that before 1801 were 12 regiments raised. If you still plan to write nonsense not supported by science and evidence, only your speculation - further conversation with you have not sense.
     
  17. Nowy

    Nowy Well-Known Member

    Yes, history is serious science, however usually has problems with real facts. Do not forget that history is full of conjectures and speculations. The main issue here is poor knowledge and poor understanding of historical facts.

    You should noticed that 1801 year was in XIX century. In 1790s Ottomans raised only few Nizam-i-Cedid infantry regiments, even there were 12 such regiments by 1801, there were only few small engagements of these troops in late XVIII century. Nizam-i-Cedid reform ended in failure. These were the FACTS which you should understand and accept.

    When you can not accept these facts, then show me proven references in that matter and give proof of your rightness.
    If you will still try only medley here with you ill argumentation futher conversation with you exactly have no sence.
     
  18. condor_fly

    condor_fly Administrator Staff Member

    For thouse, who still don't know what this green units are ?[​IMG]
    This is not a new units it is France Chassers
    [​IMG]
    Have a fun:)
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2015
    Unikron and Foeurdr like this.
  19. [PR]Ernest

    [PR]Ernest Moderator Staff Member

    Nizam cedid failed, I know, and? Fact is that before disband in 1807 it was about 40% of total army. Before 1801 nizam cedid was about 25-30% of total army. It is still big ammount. For me few is 1-15% of total army. You can't understand that nizam cedid existed in XVIII in not small ammount, they were better in fight than janissarry and should be implemented in the game.
     
  20. Foeurdr

    Foeurdr Moderator Staff Member

    I still can't believe I didn't recognize them even after Manu_La_Capuche posted a picture of one in the correct uniforms? thread
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice