Will the troops know how to march properly?

[Maddog Reed]

Will the troops still tick-tock all over the map like day one recruits?

[RodHull]

I have no understanding of the issue you reference care to elaborate?

[Archa3opt3ryx]

All troops are raised onto a single province, with the speed of how quickly they gather there influenced by distance. They don't walk there as hostile levies anymore, but are abstracted off map. So in a way, yes, they won't suicide into enemies because you didn't micromanage them anymore.

[Maddog Reed]

its an army term for moving the same arm and leg when marching, if you are moving your left leg forward your left arm should be moving backwards, but if you look at the soldiers moving in CK2 they move both left leg and arm forward at the same time.

Nothing major just as an Ex-service man it grinds on me a little lol.

[Electric]

Originally posted by RodHull:

I have no understanding of the issue you reference care to elaborate?

For sure he have no issue of that because he is like Athmet and has no problem with paradox. And that is why his sky is totaly blue without clouds.

[Maddog Reed]

I think you guys are over thinking my question

[RodHull]

Originally posted by Pirate:

Originally posted by RodHull:

I have no understanding of the issue you reference care to elaborate?

For sure he have no issue of that because he is like Athmet and has no problem with paradox. And that is why his sky is totaly blue without clouds.

This doesn't even make sense?

As I said elsewhere you really aren't very good at this unlike some of your comrades

Originally posted by Howling_Maddog_Reed:

its an army term for moving the same arm and leg when marching, if you are moving your left leg forward your left arm should be moving backwards, but if you look at the soldiers moving in CK2 they move both left leg and arm forward at the same time.

Nothing major just as an Ex-service man it grinds on me a little lol.

Ah I see I have never noticed I'll be honest. I dont think we have seen any marching animations yet from CK3 so its unclear if they have made the same mistake again

[AdahnGorion]

Now that we talk about armies, look at how the navies are more accurate now

[The Former]

Far as I'm aware, marching wasn't truly formalized until the Napoleonic era, which is probably why the Crusader Kings-era units don't have tight marching animations. I could be wrong about this, though.

[Gnome]

the romans seemed to formally marched

[taelengar]

Originally posted by Archa3opt3ryx:

All troops are raised onto a single province, with the speed of how quickly they gather there influenced by distance. They don't walk there as hostile levies anymore, but are abstracted off map. So in a way, yes, they won't suicide into enemies because you didn't micromanage them anymore.

Based on your description, it sounds like you start with a 0-man sized army that slowly increases over a number of weeks or months until it eventually reaches full size. Do you have a reference for that?

[Lathrael]

Originally posted by Howling_Maddog_Reed:

its an army term for moving the same arm and leg when marching, if you are moving your left leg forward your left arm should be moving backwards, but if you look at the soldiers moving in CK2 they move both left leg and arm forward at the same time.

Nothing major just as an Ex-service man it grinds on me a little lol.

Who cares about animations on CK? Well i guess you do, but my question still stands.

[AdahnGorion]

Originally posted by World's Coolest Old Guy:

Far as I'm aware, marching wasn't truly formalized until the Napoleonic era, which is probably why the Crusader Kings-era units don't have tight marching animations. I could be wrong about this, though.

This

Albeit I love navel combat and wants to see atleat a navel flavour pack (I want events etc while at sea) real navel combat did not really exist in this era either. So CKIII is actually more realistic in terms of that contra CKII.
People presume alot of stuff, most of it is based on either false portrayal in media (movies, books, etc) some has just become associated with x or y culture, style, whatever. I am also tainted from this, we all are.. I mean some people actually believe that Norsemen (yes not Vikings, viking is a title) had leather armour in this age....................

[Lathrael]

Originally posted by Darkie:

Originally posted by World's Coolest Old Guy:

Far as I'm aware, marching wasn't truly formalized until the Napoleonic era, which is probably why the Crusader Kings-era units don't have tight marching animations. I could be wrong about this, though.

This

Albeit I love navel combat and wants to see atleat a navel flavour pack (I want events etc while at sea) real navel combat did not really exist in this era either. So CKIII is actually more realistic in terms of that contra CKII.
People presume alot of stuff, most of it is based on either false portrayal in media (movies, books, etc) some has just become associated with x or y culture, style, whatever. I am also tainted from this, we all are.. I mean some people actually believe that Norsemen (yes not Vikings, viking is a title) had leather armour in this age....................

1- Naval warfare did exist. Especially on mediteranean, not as in war between Rome and Carthage or later sea battles, but mostly as piracy. That was mainly not because people was not able to poke each other in seas but they had different focuses.

Since you mentioned vikings, most of the loot Bjorn Ironside (i think) sacked from Luna(i think it was luna... And he thought it was rome lol.) were captured in a sea battle by pirates while he was trying getting back to North. Still, what he had able to keep made him richest viking raider known in his age.

2- We actually don't know for SURE if leather armor existed at all... People even used padded cloth as armor so it might make sense to throw in leather as well but we have no evidence.

[AdahnGorion]

Originally posted by Lathrael:

Originally posted by Darkie:

This

Albeit I love navel combat and wants to see atleat a navel flavour pack (I want events etc while at sea) real navel combat did not really exist in this era either. So CKIII is actually more realistic in terms of that contra CKII.
People presume alot of stuff, most of it is based on either false portrayal in media (movies, books, etc) some has just become associated with x or y culture, style, whatever. I am also tainted from this, we all are.. I mean some people actually believe that Norsemen (yes not Vikings, viking is a title) had leather armour in this age....................

1- Naval warfare did exist. Especially on mediteranean, not as in war between Rome and Carthage or later sea battles, but mostly as piracy. That was mainly because people was not able to poke each other in seas but they had different focuses.

Since you mentioned vikings, most of the loot Bjorn Ironside (i think) sacked from Luna(i think it was luna... And he thought it was rome lol.) were captured in a sea battle by pirates while he was trying getting back to North. Still, what he had able to keep made him richest viking raider known in his age.

2- We actually don't know for SURE if leather armor existed at all... People even used padded cloth as armor so it might make sense to throw in leather as well but we have no evidence.

There is a good little video about this. Again I am not saying it did not exist, but only a few areas used "real" navel engagement, the rest just did commision on ships to get armies across. Let me see if I can find it.
Here is a video from that Bavarian guy, that sums it up pretty well tbh. (saves me time for going to much into detail)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6GLg5H63_I

They did not do massive seabattle, they went to shore and raided, Ironside and most likely some of the other brothers or half brothers as well. They did not have a standing fleet, they build ships for a specific goal (in one case to raid Iberia) they went there, went onto land and then pillaged, then went away again. The tactics adopted against such warfare, was actually to engage the troops fast after they landed, not on sea! As for Ironside, that expedition ended up costing him his life at the journey home and it was not a great success tbh.

There is no evidence at leather armour found at all. There are plenty of other types of armour found, the most common is wool and linen. The rich could afford metal armours, but those were not standard at all. Norsemen did not run around in leather armours (we can't 100% be certain, that a few rich ones did not have it on ofc, but I reckon they would choose metal) Leather as a standar armour item, does not make sense at all.

The helmets on the other hand. That we could talk about.

[Lathrael]

A very interesting watch, thank you for the post!

Well, hear me out, i'm not well studied (and none formally) on that era, but on naval warfare and dominating presence of north africa on Mediterranean gives me few ideas.

Most of the kingdoms at Europe were in a sense, a splinter of the Rome by shared traditions to some degree, and especially on military (Even heavy focus on infantry was only broken by a necessary measure to stop advancing Andulusians).

And we all know, for an empire that rules a sea, Rome was the record holder of having the most outdated, overlooked, and totally incompetent navy (a record-holder title arguably contested by Japan). And those traditions were carried over. But what north africa had before the last collapse of the Rome?

The kingdom of Vandals and Alans (Yes, Vandals, and Alans who almost did a round trip around borders of Rome). While originally have no sea-faring origin, they managed to wrestle control of the seas from Rome (i know it's like playing tennis without a net), and have a heavy focus on navy. While they eventually collapsed, their sea-faring traditions is likely adopted by southern raiders who eventually took over.

I think that's a possible reason why there were no major sea battles or a dedicated navy in medieval europe, and why North African raiders had a free reign in Mediterranean.

Originally posted by Darkie:

There is no evidence at leather armour found at all. There are plenty of other types of armour found, the most common is wool and linen. The rich could afford metal armours, but those were not standard at all. Norsemen did not run around in leather armours (we can't 100% be certain, that a few rich ones did not have it on ofc, but I reckon they would choose metal) Leather as a standar armour item, does not make sense at all.

The helmets on the other hand. That we could talk about.

Another "educated guess", hardened leather was not strong enough to stop an impact by most weapons and not flexible (or light) as linen or wool, and more vulnerable against weather (losing it's form and function). That might hinder it's usage as a body armor a lot.

What about helmets?